Posted on 06/30/2016 10:17:01 AM PDT by Another Kansan
Recently obtained documents raise new questions about Lois Lerner’s role in sending confidential tax returns to the Justice Department. It is likely the largest unauthorized disclosure of tax-return information in history: the transfer of some 1.25 million pages of confidential tax returns from the IRS to the Department of Justice in October of 2010. And it was almost certainly illegal. The documents, which consisted chiefly of non-profit tax returns, were transferred to the DOJ’s criminal division from the IRS at the request of Lois Lerner, who wanted to get the information to the DOJ in advance of a meeting where she and several of the attorneys in the public integrity section of the department’s criminal division discussed their concerns about the increasing political activity of non-profit groups.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437280/irs-tea-party-harassment
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
28 C.F.R. §600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and—
(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and
(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.
Lois Lerner is laughing her head off at us.
Yep.
All her tracks are burned, shredded or buried under orders from Obama and Clinton.
Hopefully when Donald gets the bully pulpit.
You are right on! What we need is a “Robespierre” to deal with this collection of miscreants.
OK, Another Kansan, you told us how this can’t be prosecuted. Now tell us how and who would appoint a Special Counsel in this specific instance who would do the job.
Loretta will get right on this! She first needs to verify the wire transfer to her Swiss numbered account cleared. Courtesy of Bill and Hildabeast. But as soon as that is taken care of she’ll be johnny on the spot!
They know this because they've all undergone extensive training about the issue.
The failure of ANY of them to report their knowledge to superiors makes them a party to obstruction of justice, and also part of a conspiracy to obstruct justice.
In short, pretty much everyone who works for the IRS is an unindicted felon.
Its a fair point, of course. I agree that Congress cannot force the Attorney General to appoint a Special Counsel, but it certainly is within Congress’ ability to get a GAO investigation rolling. Not as useful as a Special Counsel but how about some congressional pressure to fully document the failure of statutory safeguards? Under the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 6103(p)(4) DoJ is required to have specific safeguards in place to protect tax return records. Subparagraph (p)(6)(A) provides that these safeguards are subject to audit by the Comptroller General. Normally, if the Chair of a committee of jurisdiction requests the GAO to conduct an inquiry, the GAO will do so.
Lois Lerner used her position in the IRS to commit crimes.
That has been obvious since her emails were published.
She belongs in prison.
So where have Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell been?
They’re busy attacking Trump.
Filthy bums!
While the special counsel is operating, find Lerner in Contempt of Congress and imprison her.
Wonder what the statute of limitations is? Especially if these offenses occurred in 2010.
Lew
Congress has ALL the power in washington, the executive and judicial branch operate according to the whims of CONGRESS!
“U.S. CODE
TITLE 2—THE CONGRESS
CHAPTER 6—CONGRESSIONAL AND COMMITTEE PROCEDURE; INVESTIGATIONS
Sec. 193. Privilege of witnesses
No witness is privileged to refuse to testify to any fact, or to produce any paper, respecting which he shall be examined by either House of Congress, or by any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or by any committee of either House, upon the ground that his testimony to such fact or his production of such paper may tend to disgrace him or otherwise render him infamous.”
Simply look up Hinds Precedents, especially chapters 53 and 51, and Cannon’s Precedents, especially chapters 184-185. You’ll find numerous detailed cases of Congress asserting its power, arresting people, holding them until they agreed to answer questions, and then releasing them. Some of these people did not refuse to appear, but simply failed to satisfactorily answer questions. One has to wonder how a previous Congress might have responded to Alberto Gonzales’s endless recitations of “I do not recall.”
Congress can Remove the President
Congress can remove the head of every executive agency Congress can remove ALL of their employees
Congress can Abolish every agency they so choose
Congress can remove EVERY JUDGE IN AMERICA, including every supreme court justice.
Congress can abolish every federal court except the supreme Court
Congress can decide which cases the Judicial Branch can hear and decide
CONGRESS can Imprison ANYONE they want for any reason they so desire for as long as they wish.
Congress can declare WAR
No other governing body has even 10% of the power CONGRESS has!!
CONGRESS IS ALLOWING ALL OF IT!!!
Congress has the authority to arrest and imprison those found in Contempt. The power extends throughout the United States and is an inherent power (does not depend upon legislated act)
If found in Contempt the person can be arrested under a warrant of the Speaker of the House of Representatives or President of the Senate, by the respective Sergeant at Arms.
Statutory criminal contempt is an alternative to inherent contempt.
Under the inherent contempt power Congress may imprison a person for a specific period of time or an indefinite period of time, except a person imprisoned by the House of Representatives may not be imprisoned beyond adjournment of a session of Congress.
Imprisonment may be coercive or punitive.
Some references
[1] Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, Volume 2, § 842 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/a1_5s21.html
[2] Anderson v. Dunn - 19 U.S. 204 - “And, as to the distance to which the process might reach, it is very clear that there exists no reason for confining its operation to the limits of the District of Columbia; after passing those limits, we know no bounds that can be prescribed to its range but those of the United States.” http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/204/case.html
[3] Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/294/125/case.html 73rd Cong., 78 Cong. Rec. 2410 (1934) https://archive.org/details/congressionalrec78aunit
[4] McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 - Under a warrant issued by the President of the Senate the Deputy to the Senate Sergeant at Arms arrested at Cincinnati, Ohio, Mally S. Daugherty, who had been twice subpoenaed by the Senate and twice failed to appear. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/273/135/case.html
[5] Rules of the House of Representatives, Rule IV Duties of the Sergeant at Arms - [] execute the commands of the House, and all processes issued by authority thereof, directed to him by the Speaker. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/HMAN-105/pdf/HMAN-105-pg348.pdf
[6] An analysis of Congressional inquiry, subpoena, and enforcement http://www.constitutionproject.org/documents/when-congress-comes-calling-a-primer-on-the-principles-practices-and-pragmatics-of-legislative-inquiry/
In 1857, a New York Times reporter refused to say which members of Congress had asked him to get them bribes (protecting his “sources” just as various Judith Millers today protect the people who feed them proven lies that costs thousands of lives), so Congress locked him up until he answered and then banned him from Congress.
In 1924 an oil executive appeared but refused to answer certain questions, so the Senate held — literally held — him in contempt. Senator Thomas Walsh of Montana argued that this question of contempt was of the gravest importance, and that it involved “the very life of the effective existence of the House of Representatives of the United States and of the Senate of the United States.” The matter was taken to court, and the witness fined and imprisoned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.