Cruz to Holder: Appoint an Independent Prosecutor in IRS Scandal

[Mojo2]

Cruz to Holder: Appoint an Independent Prosecutor in IRS Scandal

By Andrew C. McCarthy
January 22, 2014 8:23 PM

Senator Ted Cruz has written a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder calling for the Obama administration to stop stonewalling and for the attorney general to appoint an independent prosecutor to probe the IRS scandal. The letter can be found and shared at the senator’s site here.

The IRS harassment of the president’s political adversaries and the agency’s role in obstructing the participation of tea-party groups in the 2012 campaign are among the most egregious episodes of Obama administration malfeasance – and that’s saying something with this crowd.

For public consumption, as Cruz observes, both the president and the attorney general spouted indignantly about how “intolerable and inexcusable” and “outrageous and unacceptable” the IRS’s undeniable targeting of conservative groups was. But then they conducted an “investigation” under the direction of an Obama campaign donor in which law enforcement did not bother to interview the harassment victims. Meanwhile, the administration has not only stonewalled Congress (the familiar Obama M.O.) but, Cruz notes, is actively seeking new IRS rules that would validate and provide for systematic use of these “intolerable, inexcusable, outrageous and unacceptable” tactics.

Before the Justice Department’s attempted whitewash, I argued against an independent prosecutor – both because a completely independent prosecutor would be unconstitutional and because the congressional investigation stood the best chance of advancing the search for truth (a criminal DOJ investigation would just give suspected government officials a rationale for ignoring Congress’s inquiries). In the ensuing seven months, however, the Obama administration has not only obstructed the congressional investigation; it has commissioned an embarrassingly conflicted investigation in a blatant effort to tuck the scandal under the rug. If Justice is going to do an investigation, we must demand that it be sufficiently independent to have integrity.

Senator Cruz, a constitutional scholar and highly competent lawyer, is obviously sensitive to the problems posed by independent prosecutors. Prosecution is an executive power and, under the Constitution, may not properly be exercised wholly independent of the executive branch. Thus the senator takes pains to ask Holder to appoint a prosecutor “with meaningful independence” from Main Justice (emphasis added), not complete independence.

A Justice Department with integrity would not need to be told that. But a Justice Department with integrity would not have assigned Barbara Bosserman to run the investigation. Ms. Bosserman is a partisan Democrat who is a heavy Obama donor – reportedly $6,100 from 2008 through 2012, which is a considerable amount of money for a lawyer on a government salary (as opposed to a lawyer in a successful private practice).

In response to the entirely predictable and fully justified complaints about Ms. Bosserman’s appointment, the Justice Department contends that it is impermissible to take a person’s political leanings into account in doling out assignments. That is not just a specious claim; coming from this Justice Department, it is a claim that insults the intelligence.

First, as a matter of principle, ethical lawyers and ethical Justice Departments operate on the “appearance of impropriety” standard: A lawyer should not be assigned to, or accept, a case in which his or her participation creates the mere appearance of conflicted loyalties. The idea is we should never have to wonder if there is bias at work – upholding the integrity of the system is about assuring the perception of justice, not merely the concrete application of justice.

Thus it makes no difference whether Ms. Bosserman (whom I do not know and had never heard of before publicity about her assignment to the IRS case) is the most honest prosecutor in the history of prosecutors. She is, objectively speaking, an Obama partisan. This is a case with big-time political ramifications. Her political leanings thus create the appearance of impropriety.

Moreover, in my decades of experience in the Justice Department, the appearance-of-impropriety standard was broadly construed because it is not something any U.S. attorney’s office wants hanging over a case. For the sake of the subjects of the investigation (here, the Obama administration and other government officials), if they are truly innocent, they should want an investigation as to which no one could credibly suggest the fix is in. And for the sake of the lawyer, she should want no occasion for the raising of ethical questions. So even if recusal is not absolutely required (and I think the “appearance” standard requires it), the Justice Department usually recuses when it is prudent to do so. Here, it should have been a no-brainer.

As for insulting our intelligence, take a quick look at the series Hans von Spakovsky and Christian Adams did for PJ Media on the politicized hiring at Holder’s DOJ — it was aptly called “Every Single One.” They showed that, under Attorney General Holder, the Justice Department has systematically taken political leanings into account in its hiring decisions, as if “Radical Leftist” were part of the job description. This is the most politicized Justice Department in American history and the thought that Obama, Holder & Co. do not factor political considerations into virtually every significant decision is laughable.

But that’s not the half of it. Quite apart from Ms. Bosserman’s Obama partisanship is the fact that she is assigned to Main Justice’s notoriously politicized Civil Rights Division. The IRS investigation is a corruption case, not a civil-rights case or a tax case. The Civil Rights Division – Ground Zero of the Obama administration’s racially discriminatory practices, its unfathomable dismissal of the New Black Panthers voter-intimidation case, and its highly politicized lawsuits against several states – is no place for conducting a criminal government-corruption investigation.

That aside, the investigation should not be run from Main Justice at all, not even from its public-integrity section, which handles some political corruption cases. Except as minimally required (more on that below), Main Justice should be out of the IRS investigation, period. With rare exceptions, investigations should be conducted by district U.S. attorney’s offices; Main Justice’s task is to maintain national enforcement standards, not to conduct investigations and prosecutions.

In particular, when an investigation implicates Washington-based agencies (and especially when it involves Washington-headquarters-based officials of those agencies), it should not be run from Main Justice in Washington. Main Justice has regular collaborative dealings with these agencies regarding cases and policy matters. There are thousands of federal prosecutors across the U.S., the vast majority of whom have no political or operational conflicts of interests. There is thus no reason for Main Justice, which must regularly, and at the highest level, cooperate with an agency like the IRS, to be made responsible for criminally investigating the same agency.

The right way to handle the IRS case would be the way Attorney General Michael Mukasey handled the CIA “torture” investigation: Bring in a respected, non-partisan, highly experienced U.S. attorney from outside D.C. and put him/her and his/her office in charge of the investigation . . . answering only to the attorney general and, perhaps, the deputy attorney general.

As noted above, it would offend the Constitution for a federal investigation to be conducted completely outside the executive branch. Prosecutorial power is executive in nature, and it is fully reposed in President Obama. Attorney General Holder is the president’s Senate-confirmed representative for the exercise of that power. No matter who the prosecutor is, he or she must answer to the president (who appoints all district U.S. attorneys, subject to Senate confirmation), and it is only right for the prosecutor to answer to the cabinet official the president has chosen to execute his prosecutorial powers.

Nevertheless, were Obama and Holder to appoint an experienced prosecutor whose integrity and reputation for non-partisan law enforcement were above reproach, there would be powerful political incentives neither to interfere with the investigation nor to remove the prosecutor to avoid the filing of charges. Senator Cruz’s demand for a meaningfully independent investigation wisely recognizes this reality. Americans who care about getting to the truth, and who are offended by the administration’s efforts obscure the truth, should get behind it.

Cruz to Holder: Appoint an Independent Prosecutor in IRS Scandal | National Review Online

Cruz is a really smart guy.

A college debate champ. He has argued cases before the US and Texas Supreme Courts. This is a real distinction. It's not every lawyer who gets the opportunity.

BTW, the timing of the news of notable Conservative Author, Film Producer and College President, Dinesh D'Souza's indictment coincides, curiously, with Cruz' call to appoint an Independent Prosecutor.

One cancels out the other.

The pressure on Holder will be lessened with evening network news half hour shows being forced to spend part of their show on other trumped up assaults on Conservatives in addition to this.

Obama is a thug.

He no longer believes the law applies to him. And that's assuming he once did.

He is a defacto Dictator.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Holder to Cruz: Hold a Recall Election in Texas

 

[Synthaholic]

Why should there be a special prosecutor?

There is no evidence of any malice.

 

[Mojo2]

Why should there be a special prosecutor?

There is no evidence of any malice.

If you want to clean up our government at the federal level you need them to be above reproach.

After all, even the suspicion of an Executive Branch using the government departments as a tool for political persecution is almost as serious a crime as there could be. It undermines the people's faith in the effectiveness of every aspect of that government.

Without that faith there will eventually come contempt and then actual physical challenges.

We need to maintain confidence in our public servants or we all will lose. Big time.

EDIT: That's why I believe even Gov. Christie's scandal needs to be completely investigated. So we can move on one way or the other.

Even though I believe the Dems really are trying to assail Christie in order to even the odds for a Hillary run in 2016.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Why should there be a special prosecutor?

There is no evidence of any malice.

Well, then the IRS should have no problem breezing right through the investigation, shouldn't they?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Oh Cruz is still around these days?

 

[BobPlumb]

These are all phony scandals.............
Since Obama, Holder and the rest of the crew can stonewall until the clock runs out, nothing will come of any of the so called scandals. And they can get away with the stonewalling because the MSM provides cover by not doing their jobs.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why should there be a special prosecutor?

There is no evidence of any malice.

If you want to clean up our government at the federal level you need them to be above reproach.

After all, even the suspicion of an Executive Branch using the government departments as a tool for political persecution is almost as serious a crime as there could be. It undermines the people's faith in the effectiveness of every aspect of that government.

Without that faith there will eventually come contempt and then actual physical challenges.

We need to maintain confidence in our public servants or we all will lose. Big time.

EDIT: That's why I believe even Gov. Christie's scandal needs to be completely investigated. So we can move on one way or the other.

Even though I believe the Dems really are trying to assail Christie in order to even the odds for a Hillary run in 2016.

Don't be silly. All of Bush's appointees would be in jail if we had done that. Equal play.

 

[Mojo2]

Why should there be a special prosecutor?

There is no evidence of any malice.

If you want to clean up our government at the federal level you need them to be above reproach.

After all, even the suspicion of an Executive Branch using the government departments as a tool for political persecution is almost as serious a crime as there could be. It undermines the people's faith in the effectiveness of every aspect of that government.

Without that faith there will eventually come contempt and then actual physical challenges.

We need to maintain confidence in our public servants or we all will lose. Big time.

EDIT: That's why I believe even Gov. Christie's scandal needs to be completely investigated. So we can move on one way or the other.

Even though I believe the Dems really are trying to assail Christie in order to even the odds for a Hillary run in 2016.

Don't be silly. All of Bush's appointees would be in jail if we had done that. Equal play.

Let's get the rascals who are committing crimes, shitting all over our country and government and wiping their asses with the Constitution TODAY!

Then we'll work backwards.

Sound good to you?

Of course not.

You have no interest in the good health and prosperity and sound government of this country.

Do you?

If so, can you prove it?

 

[Synthaholic]

Why should there be a special prosecutor?

There is no evidence of any malice.

If you want to clean up our government at the federal level you need them to be above reproach.

After all, even the suspicion of an Executive Branch using the government departments as a tool for political persecution is almost as serious a crime as there could be. It undermines the people's faith in the effectiveness of every aspect of that government.

Without that faith there will eventually come contempt and then actual physical challenges.

We need to maintain confidence in our public servants or we all will lose. Big time.

EDIT: That's why I believe even Gov. Christie's scandal needs to be completely investigated. So we can move on one way or the other.

Even though I believe the Dems really are trying to assail Christie in order to even the odds for a Hillary run in 2016.

Yet, no suspicion exists.

 

[HenryBHough]

Cruz is obviously demented.

I mean....believing that Holder can actually read?????

 

[Mojo2]

Why should there be a special prosecutor?

There is no evidence of any malice.

If you want to clean up our government at the federal level you need them to be above reproach.

After all, even the suspicion of an Executive Branch using the government departments as a tool for political persecution is almost as serious a crime as there could be. It undermines the people's faith in the effectiveness of every aspect of that government.

Without that faith there will eventually come contempt and then actual physical challenges.

We need to maintain confidence in our public servants or we all will lose. Big time.

EDIT: That's why I believe even Gov. Christie's scandal needs to be completely investigated. So we can move on one way or the other.

Even though I believe the Dems really are trying to assail Christie in order to even the odds for a Hillary run in 2016.

Yet, no suspicion exists.

Exhibit A - How Liberals fail to grasp obvious facts when deductive reasoning is required.

It is beyond their ability to comprehend.

Synthaholic, if there was no suspicion, Cruz would not have called for an investigation.

If there was no suspicion you'd have no one anywhere supporting Cruz' call for an investigation.

If there was no suspicion your comment would have produced no objections. Instead it would have been met with the sound of *crickets*.

I know. I know. You're not REALLY that stupid. You are just practicing until you are able to impress your stupid media icons at MSNBC that you are just as stupid as they are.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If you want to clean up our government at the federal level you need them to be above reproach.

After all, even the suspicion of an Executive Branch using the government departments as a tool for political persecution is almost as serious a crime as there could be. It undermines the people's faith in the effectiveness of every aspect of that government.

Without that faith there will eventually come contempt and then actual physical challenges.

We need to maintain confidence in our public servants or we all will lose. Big time.

EDIT: That's why I believe even Gov. Christie's scandal needs to be completely investigated. So we can move on one way or the other.

Even though I believe the Dems really are trying to assail Christie in order to even the odds for a Hillary run in 2016.

Yet, no suspicion exists.

Exhibit A - How Liberals fail to grasp obvious facts when deductive reasoning is required.

It is beyond their ability to comprehend.

Synthaholic, if there was no suspicion, Cruz would not have called for an investigation.

If there was no suspicion you'd have no one anywhere supporting Cruz' call for an investigation.

If there was no suspicion your comment would have produced no objections. Instead it would have been met with the sound of *crickets*.

I know. I know. You're not REALLY that stupid. You are just practicing until you are able to impress your stupid media icons at MSNBC that you are just as stupid as they are.

Baseless accusations do not equal "suspicion". If they did, we could say that you are suspected of collecting dog shit to use as a base for your sausage gravy.

I said it, so there must be suspicion.

 

[Mojo2]

Yet, no suspicion exists.

Exhibit A - How Liberals fail to grasp obvious facts when deductive reasoning is required.

It is beyond their ability to comprehend.

Synthaholic, if there was no suspicion, Cruz would not have called for an investigation.

If there was no suspicion you'd have no one anywhere supporting Cruz' call for an investigation.

If there was no suspicion your comment would have produced no objections. Instead it would have been met with the sound of *crickets*.

I know. I know. You're not REALLY that stupid. You are just practicing until you are able to impress your stupid media icons at MSNBC that you are just as stupid as they are.

Baseless accusations do not equal "suspicion". If they did, we could say that you are suspected of collecting dog shit to use as a base for your sausage gravy.

I said it, so there must be suspicion.

Well, I'll spring the trap now instead of later.

Looks like there WAS more than suspicion.

Lots more.

When the Treasury dept. I.G. found wrongdoing and questionable activities Obama was 'SHOCKED' and promised to investigate!

When Atty. Gen'l Holder heard about the I.G. report he was "SHOCKED" and promised an investigation.

Well, 18 months later and no one has been convicted.

Yeah, there's an excuse.


Ever spend any time around ex-cons?

Some of them are kinda peculiar in that they regularly have excuses for everything that goes wrong in their lives or their area of responsibility.

Not excuses for the sake of explaining what happened and why, but excuses to avoid being held responsible.

And the more afflicted the ex-con, the more excuses they seem to have.

Think about this for a moment...

Think of the person or persons you know who regularly offer up the most excuses as a matter of course and you'll find that person may also be the least trustworthy of all your acquaintances.

They are never at fault. You can never get a straight answer from them.

The idea isn't that you are looking for them to be on the defensive all the time. It is more a case of noticing a correlation between someone who 'always' has an excuse for everything and that person's trustworthiness.

Well, have you ever noticed Obama and his administration seems to ALWAYS have an excuse for this or that or the other when something goes wrong or when they are caught doing something wrong?

They are never at fault.

And they are habitual liars.

Just wanted to alert you all to what's happening.
Oh, I almost forgot.

Here. Enjoy!

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration's findings

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found that inappropriate criteria had been used by IRS personnel to select certain applications for tax exemption status for further review and that inappropriate procedures were applied against organizations based on their names or policy positions.[16] According to the audit, beginning early in 2010, front-line IRS agents violated IRS policy by failing to handle tax matters in an impartial manner that would promote public confidence:

The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention. Ineffective management: 1) allowed inappropriate criteria to be developed and stay in place for more than 18 months, 2) resulted in substantial delays in processing certain applications, and 3) allowed unnecessary information requests to be issued. Although the processing of some applications with potential significant political campaign intervention was started soon after receipt, no work was completed on the majority of these applications for 13 months.... For the 296 total political campaign intervention applications [reviewed in the audit] as of December 17, 2012, 108 had been approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicant, none had been denied, and 160 were open from 206 to 1,138 calendar days (some for more than three years and crossing two election cycles).... Many organizations received requests for additional information from the IRS that included unnecessary, burdensome questions (e.g., lists of past and future donors).[16]

The Inspector General concluded that "although the IRS has taken some action, it will need to do more so that the public has reasonable assurance that applications are processed without unreasonable delay in a fair and impartial manner in the future."[16]

The Washington Post described the audit report as having found that some IRS employees were “ignorant about tax laws, defiant of their supervisors and blind to the appearance of impropriety.”[87]

Criticism of the inspector general

J. Russell George, the Treasury Department Inspector General who had alerted lawmakers to the IRS's improper behavior, was criticized by Republican lawmakers, who said that because inspectors general are required to notify Congress via agency heads when wrongdoing is discovered—and in serious cases must do so within 7 days—he should have notified Congress in 2012, prior to the election that year.[88] Inspector General George, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, responded by saying that the audit had not been complete, and that in his view, "to ensure fairness and to ensure that we are completely accurate with the information that we convey to Congress, we will not report information until the IRS has had an opportunity to take a look at it to ensure that we're not misstating facts."[88]

2013 Congressional investigation

Following the Inspector General's report, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform began an investigation into the IRS. Additionally, the House Committee on Ways and Means expanded its ongoing 2011 investigation into IRS political targeting to include the BOLO keyword targeting allegations.

On May 15, the House Oversight Committee requested that Holly Paz, John Shafer, Gary Muther, Liz Hofacre and Joseph Herraz be interviewed beginning May 20, 2013.[89]

On May 22, 2013, in an opening statement to the House committee chaired by Representative Darrell Issa, Lerner stated: “I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations. And I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee." Lerner then invoked her Fifth Amendment right against compelled testimony and refused to testify.[90] Issa later asserted that Lerner had waived her Fifth Amendment rights by giving partial testimony and that he intended to call her back into the hearings.[91][92] Congressman Trey Gowdy agreed with Issa. Gowdy stated: "She [Lois Lerner] just waived her Fifth Amendment right. You don't get to tell your side of the story and then not be subjected to cross examination — that's not the way it works. She waived her right to Fifth Amendment privilege by issuing an opening statement. She ought to stand here and answer our questions."

Law professor James Duane told New York Magazine that Gowdy's assertion was "extremely imaginative" but "mistaken" because a person who is involuntarily summoned before a grand jury or a legislative body may selectively invoke the right to silence.[93] Law professor Alan Dershowitz took a different view, arguing: "You can't simply make statements about a subject and then plead the Fifth in response to questions about the very same subject," and asserting that "[o]nce you open the door to an area of inquiry, you have waived your Fifth Amendment right".[94]

In a May 22, 2013 testimony before Congress, former IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman stated that he had frequently visited the White House during 2010-2011, but he denied having discussed the targeting of conservatives with anyone in the White House.[95][96] His testimony was criticized by several columnists.[97][98] Some media outlets and lawmakers asserted that Shulman had visited the White House up to 157 times; however, The Atlantic reported that that represented the number of times Shulman was cleared by the Secret Service to visit the White House or the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, not necessarily the number of times Shulman actually arrived; visitor sign-in logs can confirm only 11 visits between 2009 and 2012, though the number is likely higher because the sign-in system does not capture every visitor, particularly at large events. Shulman was regularly scheduled for events like the biweekly health-care deputies meeting that would have had a standing list of people cleared to attend.[99]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_I...r_General_for_Tax_Administration.27s_findings

 

[mudwhistle]

These are all phony scandals.............
Since Obama, Holder and the rest of the crew can stonewall until the clock runs out, nothing will come of any of the so called scandals. And they can get away with the stonewalling because the MSM provides cover by not doing their jobs.

Just like any average run-of-the-mill Banana Republic.

This country has sunk so low, so fast.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Synthaholic, if there was no suspicion, Cruz would not have called for an investigation.

If there was no suspicion you'd have no one anywhere supporting Cruz' call for an investigation.

If there was no suspicion your comment would have produced no objections. Instead it would have been met with the sound of *crickets*.

I know. I know. You're not REALLY that stupid. You are just practicing until you are able to impress your stupid media icons at MSNBC that you are just as stupid as they are.

Baseless accusations do not equal "suspicion". If they did, we could say that you are suspected of collecting dog shit to use as a base for your sausage gravy.

I said it, so there must be suspicion.

Well, I'll spring the trap now instead of later.

Looks like there WAS more than suspicion.

Lots more.

When the Treasury dept. I.G. found wrongdoing and questionable activities Obama was 'SHOCKED' and promised to investigate!

When Atty. Gen'l Holder heard about the I.G. report he was "SHOCKED" and promised an investigation.

Well, 18 months later and no one has been convicted.

Yeah, there's an excuse.


Ever spend any time around ex-cons?

Some of them are kinda peculiar in that they regularly have excuses for everything that goes wrong in their lives or their area of responsibility.

Not excuses for the sake of explaining what happened and why, but excuses to avoid being held responsible.

And the more afflicted the ex-con, the more excuses they seem to have.

Think about this for a moment...

Think of the person or persons you know who regularly offer up the most excuses as a matter of course and you'll find that person may also be the least trustworthy of all your acquaintances.

They are never at fault. You can never get a straight answer from them.

The idea isn't that you are looking for them to be on the defensive all the time. It is more a case of noticing a correlation between someone who 'always' has an excuse for everything and that person's trustworthiness.

Well, have you ever noticed Obama and his administration seems to ALWAYS have an excuse for this or that or the other when something goes wrong or when they are caught doing something wrong?

They are never at fault.

And they are habitual liars.

Just wanted to alert you all to what's happening.
Oh, I almost forgot.

Here. Enjoy!

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration's findings

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found that inappropriate criteria had been used by IRS personnel to select certain applications for tax exemption status for further review and that inappropriate procedures were applied against organizations based on their names or policy positions.[16] According to the audit, beginning early in 2010, front-line IRS agents violated IRS policy by failing to handle tax matters in an impartial manner that would promote public confidence:

The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention. Ineffective management: 1) allowed inappropriate criteria to be developed and stay in place for more than 18 months, 2) resulted in substantial delays in processing certain applications, and 3) allowed unnecessary information requests to be issued. Although the processing of some applications with potential significant political campaign intervention was started soon after receipt, no work was completed on the majority of these applications for 13 months.... For the 296 total political campaign intervention applications [reviewed in the audit] as of December 17, 2012, 108 had been approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicant, none had been denied, and 160 were open from 206 to 1,138 calendar days (some for more than three years and crossing two election cycles).... Many organizations received requests for additional information from the IRS that included unnecessary, burdensome questions (e.g., lists of past and future donors).[16]

The Inspector General concluded that "although the IRS has taken some action, it will need to do more so that the public has reasonable assurance that applications are processed without unreasonable delay in a fair and impartial manner in the future."[16]

The Washington Post described the audit report as having found that some IRS employees were “ignorant about tax laws, defiant of their supervisors and blind to the appearance of impropriety.”[87]

Criticism of the inspector general

J. Russell George, the Treasury Department Inspector General who had alerted lawmakers to the IRS's improper behavior, was criticized by Republican lawmakers, who said that because inspectors general are required to notify Congress via agency heads when wrongdoing is discovered—and in serious cases must do so within 7 days—he should have notified Congress in 2012, prior to the election that year.[88] Inspector General George, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, responded by saying that the audit had not been complete, and that in his view, "to ensure fairness and to ensure that we are completely accurate with the information that we convey to Congress, we will not report information until the IRS has had an opportunity to take a look at it to ensure that we're not misstating facts."[88]

2013 Congressional investigation

Following the Inspector General's report, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform began an investigation into the IRS. Additionally, the House Committee on Ways and Means expanded its ongoing 2011 investigation into IRS political targeting to include the BOLO keyword targeting allegations.

On May 15, the House Oversight Committee requested that Holly Paz, John Shafer, Gary Muther, Liz Hofacre and Joseph Herraz be interviewed beginning May 20, 2013.[89]

On May 22, 2013, in an opening statement to the House committee chaired by Representative Darrell Issa, Lerner stated: “I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations. And I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee." Lerner then invoked her Fifth Amendment right against compelled testimony and refused to testify.[90] Issa later asserted that Lerner had waived her Fifth Amendment rights by giving partial testimony and that he intended to call her back into the hearings.[91][92] Congressman Trey Gowdy agreed with Issa. Gowdy stated: "She [Lois Lerner] just waived her Fifth Amendment right. You don't get to tell your side of the story and then not be subjected to cross examination — that's not the way it works. She waived her right to Fifth Amendment privilege by issuing an opening statement. She ought to stand here and answer our questions."

Law professor James Duane told New York Magazine that Gowdy's assertion was "extremely imaginative" but "mistaken" because a person who is involuntarily summoned before a grand jury or a legislative body may selectively invoke the right to silence.[93] Law professor Alan Dershowitz took a different view, arguing: "You can't simply make statements about a subject and then plead the Fifth in response to questions about the very same subject," and asserting that "[o]nce you open the door to an area of inquiry, you have waived your Fifth Amendment right".[94]

In a May 22, 2013 testimony before Congress, former IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman stated that he had frequently visited the White House during 2010-2011, but he denied having discussed the targeting of conservatives with anyone in the White House.[95][96] His testimony was criticized by several columnists.[97][98] Some media outlets and lawmakers asserted that Shulman had visited the White House up to 157 times; however, The Atlantic reported that that represented the number of times Shulman was cleared by the Secret Service to visit the White House or the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, not necessarily the number of times Shulman actually arrived; visitor sign-in logs can confirm only 11 visits between 2009 and 2012, though the number is likely higher because the sign-in system does not capture every visitor, particularly at large events. Shulman was regularly scheduled for events like the biweekly health-care deputies meeting that would have had a standing list of people cleared to attend.[99]

2013 IRS scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You realized that your previous comment was borderline retarded......and you went looking for something that would pass as "suspicion" so you could pretend like you were setting a trap of some kind.

You should take after some of our less original nutters here and simply post links. Your comments are not impressive.

Weak minded nutter. Try harder.

 

[JoeB131]

Why should there be a special prosecutor?

There is no evidence of any malice.

If you want to clean up our government at the federal level you need them to be above reproach.

After all, even the suspicion of an Executive Branch using the government departments as a tool for political persecution is almost as serious a crime as there could be. It undermines the people's faith in the effectiveness of every aspect of that government.

Without that faith there will eventually come contempt and then actual physical challenges.

We need to maintain confidence in our public servants or we all will lose. Big time.

.

Did you all kind of forget Lawrence Walsh prosecuting Cap Weinberger for thinking that "notes" constituted a "diary"?

Or Ken Starr turning an investigation over a failed land deal where the Clinton's lost money into an investigation about whether a blow job is really sex or not?

Or Patrick Fitzgerald prosecuting Scooter Libby over not remembering a conversation the same way Tim Russert did, when someone else actually leaked Valerie Plames name?

The problem with these "Special Prosecutors" is that they end up becoming, "Dammit, I'm going to get someone for something!"


How's this for a whacky idea. Instead of prosecuting IRS officials for trying to muddle their way through a bad court ruling, revise the tax code so that the difference between a Social Welfare Agency and a Political Organization is even clear to THIS IDIOT!

 

[Mojo2]

These are all phony scandals.............
Since Obama, Holder and the rest of the crew can stonewall until the clock runs out, nothing will come of any of the so called scandals. And they can get away with the stonewalling because the MSM provides cover by not doing their jobs.

Just like any average run-of-the-mill Banana Republic.

This country has sunk so low, so fast.

You are absolutely right!

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

Ronald Reagan

40th president of US (1911 - 2004)

And loss of freedom is the worst of it all, but that's not the only thing that's been f'ed up in such a short amount of time.

It is a laundry list of areas where Obama has shat upon every nice thing in the American "household."

 

[Mojo2]

Why should there be a special prosecutor?

There is no evidence of any malice.

If you want to clean up our government at the federal level you need them to be above reproach.

After all, even the suspicion of an Executive Branch using the government departments as a tool for political persecution is almost as serious a crime as there could be. It undermines the people's faith in the effectiveness of every aspect of that government.

Without that faith there will eventually come contempt and then actual physical challenges.

We need to maintain confidence in our public servants or we all will lose. Big time.

.

Did you all kind of forget Lawrence Walsh prosecuting Cap Weinberger for thinking that "notes" constituted a "diary"?

Or Ken Starr turning an investigation over a failed land deal where the Clinton's lost money into an investigation about whether a blow job is really sex or not?

Or Patrick Fitzgerald prosecuting Scooter Libby over not remembering a conversation the same way Tim Russert did, when someone else actually leaked Valerie Plames name?

The problem with these "Special Prosecutors" is that they end up becoming, "Dammit, I'm going to get someone for something!"


How's this for a whacky idea. Instead of prosecuting IRS officials for trying to muddle their way through a bad court ruling, revise the tax code so that the difference between a Social Welfare Agency and a Political Organization is even clear to THIS IDIOT!

Yeah, let's send a clear and unmistakable message to all who might be tempted to treat the presidency as a dictatorship with a set of perks which include use of the departments of government as his own personal partisan enforcers, that there will be no consequences for snatching freedoms from the citizens of this country.



And you assume that it was just the IRS trying to "muddle their way through a bad court ruling..."

Yeah???

So, let's confirm your assumption.

Investigate.

I'm sure they'll all appreciate the opportunity to clear their names and reputations.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right reactionaries are interested only in power not "in the good health and prosperity and sound government of this country"