If Elijah does, in fact, possess unauthorized tax documents obtained through conspiracy and collusion, and if he distributed the illegally-held documents to other "interested parties" (perhaps in Congress), charges of aiding and abetting could also be involved.
===============================================
ALL OF THIS THIS NEEDS TO GO VIRAL One of the Articles of Impeachment drawn up against Richard Nixon was merely "threatening" to use the Internal Revenue Service to selectively audit political opponents.
OBAMA HAS WEAPONIZED THE IRS AGAINST POLITICAL OPPONENTS ordering multiple covert campaigns of intimidation, threats, and persecution of tea party/conservative organizations, and those daring to criticize Obama's agenda.
<><> Seven lock-stepping Democrats scared-***tless of losing their seats ask the IRS to Investigate political opponents,
<><> Rep Elijah Cummings led the Democrat pack in smearing True the Vote patriot Catherine Englebrecht....
<><> the FBI, ATF, the IRS, and OSHA were sicced on Catherine Englebrecht, as she valiantly tried to improve the US voting system.
<><> Obama said Tea Parties were a "threat to democracy."
<><> The IRS (a tax-funded L/E agency) takes its marching orders from Democrat;
=======================================
DEMS STOOP TO CONQUEUR--order IRS to act to save their seats
by Alexander Bolton, The Hill, 2/13/14
Senate Democrats facing tough elections this year want the IRS to play a more aggressive role in regulating outside groups expected to spend millions of dollars on their races. In the wake of the IRS targeting scandal, the Democrats are publicly prodding the agency instead of lobbying them directly.
Dems are also careful to say the IRS should treat conservative and liberal groups equally, but theyre concerned about an impending tidal wave of attack ads funded by GOP-allied organizations. Much of the funding for those groups is secret, in contrast to the donations lawmakers collect, which must be reported publicly.
One of the most powerful groups is Americans for Prosperity, funded by the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch. It has already spent close to $30 million on ads attacking Democrats this election cycle.
If theyre claiming the tax relief, the tax benefit to be a nonprofit for social relief or social justice, then thats what they should be doing, said Sen. Mark Begich (D), who faces a competitive race in Alaska. If its to give them cover so they can do political activity, thats abusing the tax code. And either side."
Asked if the IRS should play a more active role policing political advocacy by groups that claim to be focused on social welfare, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) responded, Absolutely. Both on the left and the right, she said. As taxpayers, we should not be providing a write-off to groups to do political activity, and thats exactly what were doing.
Shaheen called the glut of political spending by self-described social welfare groups that qualify under section 501(c) (4) of the tax code outrageous. Shaheen is in a good position now but could find herself embroiled in a tight campaign if former Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass) challenges her.
Sen. Mark Pryor (Ark.), the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent, said the IRS has jurisdiction over 501(c)(4) groups, as well as charities, which fall under section 5/01(c)(3) of the tax code and sometimes engage in quasi-political activity.
That whole 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4) [issue], those are IRS numbers. It is inherently an internal revenue matter, he said. There are two things you dont want in political money, in the fundraising world and expenditure world. You dont want secret money, and you dont want unlimited money, and thats what we have now. --SNIP--
“said the IRS has jurisdiction over 501(c)(4) groups, as well as charities, which fall under section 5/01(c)(3) of the tax code and sometimes engage in quasi-political activity.”
IRS enforces the law that is written and passed by congress and subject to court review and decision. They have no right to hold up applications from organizations that apply for non tax status under the law for the purpose of circumventing and evading due process of the law.