Posted on 01/11/2015 9:48:17 PM PST by george76
The Justice Department has been, to say no more, unhelpful regarding attempts to fully investigate and properly punish the politicization and corruption of the Internal Revenue Service. Given the departments seeming complicity in the coverup, would it not be appropriate to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS practice of suppressing the political activity of conservative groups?
Civil forfeiture the seizure of property suspected of being produced by, or involved with, crime has become a lucrative business for lawless law enforcement. Civil forfeiture treats citizens worse than criminals, seizing the property of people neither convicted of nor even indicted for a crime. All or a portion of the proceeds from the sale of such property goes to those who seized it. You are familiar with this form of moral hazard: Between 2011 and 2013, your U.S. Attorneys Office reaped more than $113 million from such forfeitures. Do you agree that this practice often is indistinguishable from robbery?
Many progressives say that the 34 states that have passed laws requiring voters to have a government-issued photo ID are practicing vote suppression. Does requiring a photo ID at airports constitute travel suppression? Visitors to the Justice Department are required to present photo IDs. Will you we will be watching with a fine-toothed comb plan to end this visit suppression?
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Some good stuff there from George.
Great question. Will they ask them?
Good questions, though I don’t agree with Will’s contention right out of the gate that this person should be approved by the Senate.
Will is a turd
But sometimes he’s a bright and shiny turd.
False arrogance is never shiny but it always stinks cause it is always a turd
“False arrogance”
That’s like irregardless. Or dual redundant.
GEORGE_WILL_CHANNELING_THOMAS_SOWELL_PING!
The new GOP Senate has already signaled they’ll roll over.
Okay, I'll bite. How is Will's insistence on a Senate vote inconsistent with the Constitution's requirement that the Senate "advise and consent" to _residential appointments? That's what the "czars" controversy was (is) all about.
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.