Posted on 06/24/2014 11:38:59 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
Edited on 06/24/2014 12:19:41 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Lerner refuses to testify, refuses to produce emails - compel her to testify regarding the recipients, senders, subjects and contents of the "lost" email conversations or jail her for contempt of congress.
How far up the ladder does this criminal conspiracy go?
What did the president know and when did he know it?
We the people have a right to know whether or not our president is a crook and our IRS is corrupt.
Hate to say it, but if the congress is incapable of breaking this administration's stonewall, we may need a special prosecutor with the power to lock up these obviously corrupt bastards.
---- additional comment regarding the tea party and the GOP -----
Actually, it could be much worse than that. The corrupt president saw the tea party as a direct threat to his ObamaCare scam and so sent Lois Lerner and the IRS after us (along with the DHS). The GOP establishment would not have a problem with seeing the tea party attacked. We’re a direct threat to them too. It’s a bipartisan effort to defend the gravy train.
First you need to squeeze Johnnie out of the Gin bottle.
Leni
Every time the administration violates the law, Congress should hire special staff to collect evidence while it is fresh, and to dog wrongdoers relentlessly. There is some deterrent value, as well as the possibility of having some conspirators crack and testify against their mob bosses.
When someone of virtue once again holds the authority of the Attorney General, prosecutions and prison terms should be pursued for the good of the Republic.
Exactly... That is the way the Founders included to allow Congress to be a check and balance to the Executive and Judicial branches. The idea was that if either of the other two branches exceeded their Constitutional mandate and became tyrannical or despotic, the Congress could act as a brake on those actions by denying them the money to operate. And while technically the House could do so on its own (since all tax and spending bills must originate there), as a practical and political reality they could not do so for long without the support of the Senate and broad public support - otherwise, large numbers of them would be voted out at the next election. That is also a reason for 2-year terms for the House - it makes them regularly accountable to the public.
——Immunize her——
At this point that’s not going to do much....
Might even not help at all...
I think everybody knows the answer to that. However, we have to wait for the evidence to be developed. So far, we know that prominent democrat politicians were pressuring the IRS to look into conservative 501(c)(4) organizations. At this point, their isn't any evidence available that those prominent politicians were actively coordinating with the IRS to target conservatives. We know that passive attempts were made by those people to push IRS personnel to target conservatives groups.
Pillory her in front of the Washington Monument, and pelt her with rocks and garbage.
Well, a select committee would be more of the same, although it might raise the visibility somewhat. It still would not give Congress the ability to prosecute anyone, and the only tool they would have to get people to cooperate is the threat of a contempt finding - which they have already proven is an empty threat. They might be able to bring more resources to bear, but still would not be able to force the IRS or the administration to cooperate, nor could they force the DOJ to prosecute if they find evidence of criminal acts/
First off, my entire first post to Jim dealt with the tools available to Congress, and the fact that they are unwilling to use them. So your statement that I started by talking about the ability of Congress to deal with this and then changed to talking about will to do so is demonstrably false.
Second, I added the comment about the "will to enforce their contempt rulings" as a gracious nod to the validity of your basic point - that, even though I did not include that contempt power in the constitutional powers of Congress (since it is not mentioned in the Constitution), it is nonetheless a power they hold and could use if they choose. But that does not invalidate my point that the power is limited in use, because Congress does not have the political will to use it, and because Congress's ability to incarcerate people in the Capitol holding cells is limited as a practical matter.
You didn't "call" me out. You took a part of my statement and used it to claim I was wrong. I specifically identified the Constitutional tools (those specified in the Constitution) given to Congress to deal with situations such as the IRS scandal. Prosecution and incarceration of those responsible is not one. You chose to ignore that, and claim that Contempt of Congress is one of the Constitutional tools available. Yes, the courts held that the contempt power is an "implied" or "inherent" power, but that is something a little akin to the "penumbras and emanations" that we tend to ridicule in the Roe v. Wade decision, since neither can be found in the text of the Constitution. (Note that I have never said the contempt power is unconstitutional, just that is not one of the powers that the Constitution specifically gives the Congress. There is a big difference.)
This power is limited. If they choose, Congress can hold someone in contempt for refusing to comply with a subpoena, for refusing to testify, even for creating a disturbance in Congress - basically for any offense against Congress that interferes with their ability to function. But the incarceration for that offense is limited until the end of the current session of Congress. And it does not extend to punishment for the targeting of people for political purposes, etc. - which is what this scandal is all about.
And you still have not made any point to contradict my basic assertion, which is that nothing is going to come of this because Congress has voluntarily and preemptively surrendered any tools or weapons they could use to compel compliance. And I see nothing coming from Congress that gives any indication that this will change in the near future. There is not enough of an awareness in the public to put the kind of pressure on Congress that would be necessary for a change. And with a compliant MSM, I don't see that changing enough to force Congress to act. With Nixon, you had the press running with the story 24/7 for months on end. You can't even get a one-day front page story from them on this case.
Instead of either acknowledging the points where we are in agreement, or at least choosing to disagree in a civil manner, you seem to want to attack me for holding a different perspective (using words like "sanctimony", "pretensions", "defeatism"). That is behavior I would expect to see on DU more than I would here. You seem desperate to "win" the argument. The fact that I agreed that Congress could jail someone for contempt if they chose does not seem to be good enough for you. You seem to need that to be a sign that you were right and I was wrong, and for me to suddenly not only agree that Congress can but they WILL do that. Well, I'm sorry you are so insecure. You have a valid point about the power, but it is ultimately an irrelevant point, and as such, an irrelevant victory for you, because in this case and at this time, it does not look like Congress has any stomach to use that power, or any other, to rectify the situation.
I agree but one other thing needs to be done. To prevent people like Lerner from clamming up and waiting for Obama to pardon them, the House controlled by the Republicans needs to be proactive. The House of Representatives control the purse-strings. Make it known that any pardon of a key IRS person will immediately result in a draconian cut in the IRS budget.
Maybe if she’s immunized her memory about the emails would improve.
My point is without the actual emails to compare to her testimony,
she can say whatever she wants to make up.
If she can come up with the emails, then that is a different situation.
Amen to that.
Criminal behavior should not be rewarded with a pardon from a president who at the very least sanctioned those criminal acts.
Thank you!
You ignored these credible and authoritative citations and continued to claim that the power to imprison for inherent contempt "is quite limited as a practical matter." You offered nothing to support this claim. You even claimed that it was a "statutory power" (post 55)
What you did offer when these errors were pointed out was condescension. And you still continue with your condescension.
Comparing inherent contempt to "penumbras and emanations" is nonsense. If you had read any of the cited material you would not make such a ridiculous comparison.
You continue to smoothly modify your original position and introduce diversions. For example:
"This power is limited. If they choose, Congress can hold someone in contempt for refusing to comply with a subpoena, for refusing to testify, even for creating a disturbance in Congress - basically for any offense against Congress that interferes with their ability to function. But the incarceration for that offense is limited until the end of the current session of Congress. And it does not extend to punishment for the targeting of people for political purposes, etc. - which is what this scandal is all about." post 89No claim was ever made that Congress' power to imprison extended "to punishment for the targeting of people for political purposes". Why do you introduce this diversion? No need to answer, it's a rhetorical question.
"Winning the argument", contrary to your framing, is irrelevant. What is relevant is confronting defeatism.
You're not as slick as you think you are.
Agreed.
At least they should sic a pack of investigators on their trail for every violation that they commit. Let the baying of the wolves haunt their dreams. Something beats nothing, and something should be done.
With enough resources, someone will be caught.
Like Pol Pot said, if you kill one monkey, you scare ten.
The DOJ [Eric Holder] will never allow a special prosecutor, and without a prosecutor all we will hear is sound from Congress and the talking heads - there will be NO accountability at all!! Think of Fast and Furious, Benghazi, NSA vs journalists [like James Rosen], NSA vs the American people... on and on.
America's Free Republic staggers on the edge of a knife... elections will not come in time to save her [look at Thad Cochran's election yesterday.] ... Perhaps only God can save her now.
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.