Posted on 09/08/2017 6:20:37 PM PDT by be-baw
(snip)
But the September 8 letter from the Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ Justice Department said it would not even reopen the investigation because officials require “proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a government employee intentionally discriminated against an applicant for a tax-exempt status based on viewpoint.”
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Do you think BO didn’t give his Attorneys General direct orders on whom to go after and whom they should not go after?
So Obama is your metric as to what is right/legal and wrong/illegal. He is the standard by which DC should operate. Anything Obama did should be considered model behavior, and the rule of law, accordingto you, is, ‘Whatever Obama did.’
I now see the problem.
Trump’s DOJ concluded same thing.
Wrongly.
Since you do not have any actual evidence and they do, I’d say you’re wrong.
Baloney. Judicial Watch has uncovered plenty of "evidence" that would have otherwise been swept under the rug. Sessions is protecting the swamp, which should be upgraded to a cesspool at this point.
You want evidence? Try these (but you won’t.)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/irs-targeted-tea-party-groups-earlier-than-2012/
https://www.teaparty.org/breaking-new-evidence-released-obama-panicking-hiding-yacht-230744/
https://aclj.org/free-speech-2/timeline-of-targeting-evidence-mounts-against-irs-lois-lerner
https://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=245737.200
http://thepoliticalinsider.com/lois-lerner-clinton-foundation-irs/
Of course there was criminality. Obama knew it; so did his people.
.
We seriously need a real Attorney General.
Sessions wears a Kotex over his face.
.
These are posted stories. They are not legal pieces of evidence that will hold up in court. I know this is tough for you, but a court is not the same as public opinion. You must be able to PROVE stuff, not just present evidence. The defense will always have counter evidence.
In determining whether to proceed with a case, ANY prosecutor has to measure the likelihood of a conviction. The case itself costs money, incredible time (not just of the investigators, but of witnesses-—who leave, die, disappear, develop memory diseases and change stories). If you lose such a case, it’s a major defeat and you won’t get another shot at anyone else.
Prosecutors just do not bring cases they think they cannot win-—much different from civil cases where you can afford to “take a shot.”
For example, “IRS TARGETED TEA PARTY GROUPS” will immediately be subjected to “what do you mean by ‘target?’ What about x, y, z liberal groups (and there were some)?” Then even if you establish that the IRS did indeed “target” groups, your next burden of proof is that Lerner herself not only was AWARE of it but DIRECTED it, so where are your internal e-mails and memos? I guarantee Judicial Watch or CBS don’t have those. And even if you find them, they would literally have to say (Lerner): “I want you to specifically target Tea Party groups because I don’t like them.”
It’s not enough legally to even have her instruct targeting-—it would have to be because of a specific illegal reason (not liking them) as opposed to suspicion that they may, as a group, not be filing the proper paperwork.
Again, I know this is hard. I am telling you this as one who was AUDITED by the IRS four years ago and we strongly suspect it was because I was a conservative filmmaker. BUT . . . the agent in the room was a former UD student who assured me it was random and that there were only three companies in Dayton that came up in our bracket, and they were told to investigate two. Also, there were indeed some (what I thought were minor) “red flags” involving some investments into the company. Legal, but enough to cause someone to look twice.
Now, if you still want to continue, don’t. You have your mind made up. I’m trying to explain to you how the internals of such an investigation work.
No. Judicial Watch uncovers “evidence” that by itself means nothing in a formal investigation.
Please speak to a prosecutor or DA and get an understanding of what these kinds of cases entail.
Bannon told me flat out that they were not going after most of these people because the evidence wasn’t there and because it was a waste of resources because they couldn’t get convictions in a DC jury.
Then how does Bannon propose that we "drain the swamp"? It can't be done overnight, of course, but it won't be done at all if people aren't made to pay for their crimes. Nobody likes the IRS other than hardcore Dems - assuming that they couldn't get a conviction in DC seems like they simply bailed on doing so. Sorry, but this decision is not sitting well with a lot of people, not just me.
1. Trump is simply not filling all the slots. This is huge. He’s draining by attrition. But this should have been done long ago anyway.
2. It’s a swap out process. How did Jimmy Johnson rebuild the Cowboys? One draft at a time. Each month, flip a few out. As you start to get more people in Deputy and Assistant positions, they will start replacing with their own people as well.
3. Don’t take this the wrong way, but I just spent a week in the Reagan archives. NOTHING happens quickly or easily, I don’t care who the guy at the top is. For one thing, you put people in place under you to carry out your orders-—but you have to give them enough autonomy and flexibility to operate on their own. So . . .
When you have a policy-—ANY policy-—it starts to go through all the relevant departments. I saw some routine discussion papers on the budget to take out this item, or include that. Sometimes 10 people would have to sign off on it, because it affected each person’s department differently. For example, Murray Weidenbaum, Reagan’s head of the Council of Economic Affairs, a VERY powerful position given that the economy was task #1 in 1981: he was lobbying against any immigration reform because it would upset the economic numbers. Now, he wasn’t (that I could tell) FOR or AGAINST illegals . . . but he was given a job by RR to put juice back in the economy and he was trying to do that as he saw it.
The only place I could find that RR had very hands on, direct control over specific outcomes was in the National Security Decision briefs (NSDDs) where he (and it was his language, you could tell) very specifically said “We will do x, y, z with Russia in the following order.” But even those had been thoroughly circulated to every single relevant department head.
Much of this is less “swamp” than a titanic bureaucracy in which people you trust to get things done are required to go through certain steps and have certain resource limitations.
So, for example, DOJ: Sessions has 50 things more important than Lois Lerner right now. He sits on EVERY trade negotiation and his DOJ lawyers have to examine every treaty, every agreement for criminality. No one except Trump can speak directly with DOJ-—did you know that? Only if you have a White House counsel present. But, for example, Pence cannot call Sessions on the phone and say, “I think you should prosecute x”. It would be viewed as an ethics infringement that would get back to Congress & start yet another investigation.
Then, after you do all that, you are faced with your DOJ attorneys who have looked at, say, Lerner, and send you a report that says, “Yes, we can prosecute, but we would lose, because THIS piece of evidence, would be countered like THIS in a court, and it would not result in a conviction.” Now, no head of any legal department is going to proceed with any prosecution they don’t think they are 100% certain they can win. Too many other things to prosecute.
Hope this helps.
The stories report actual evidence.
The explanation for the so-called “liberal groups” is simple: They were trying to cover their tracks.
Lerner’s emails pretty well establish that she was directing it.
(And if you think your audit was random, guess again.)
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.