Posted on 07/10/2014 8:18:51 AM PDT by PoloSec
The fundamental question about the IRS targeting the president’s political enemies is whether it was corruption or incompetency. A newly obtained email from the central figure in the scandal, former IRS executive Lois Lerner, isn’t helping the administration’s claim that the abuses were unintentional: “I was cautioning folks about email and how we have had several occasions where Congress has asked for emails and there has been an electronic search for responsive emails -- so we need to be cautious about what we say in emails,” Lerner wrote to a colleague before the scandal went public. Lerner goes on inquire about whether members of Congress could get access to an instant messaging system used by the agency. Not only does this suggest bad motives but casts further shadows on the agency’s claims that emails from Lerner and other figures in the targeting scandal were accidentally lost in a computer crash and are unrecoverable. Given Lerner’s apparent effort to obstruct investigators, the administration’s long-silent internal investigation looks less and less credible.
The fundamental question about the IRS targeting the president’s political enemies is whether it was corruption or incompetency.
Clearly, there was both.
I would love to see Lerner frog-marched, in handcuffs! It’s time!
Ya, think? ROTFLMAO
Actually the fundamental question is whether there is anything that would move Obama or (yes I’m dreaming) Eric Holder on his own to give the go ahead to the appointment of a Special Prosecuter?
The answer is NO.
Unless I’m mistaken congress can appoint a special prosecutor. So, if they have the power to do that why haven’t they? If ever anything deserved one this is it.
This cries out for a special prosecutor, what’s the wait?
Agreed!
Is it competent for a criminal thug to warn about emails -—
IN AN EMAIL???
Actually the fundamental question is whether there is anything that would move Obama or (yes I’m dreaming) Eric Holder on his own to give the go ahead to the appointment of a Special Prosecutor?
Actually the answer is yes, if in fact this administration
didn’t have anything to do with the targeting.
Don’t look for a special prosecutor any time soon.
Issa hasn't the gonads to do what the American public wants. He is worthless if by now he must realize his game is useless without the force of jail right now.
He’s got the force of jail if he chooses to use it, Congress even has a couple of jail cells on site. But you’re right, he hasn’t got the gonads.
An independent prosecutor would bring down the house of cards. If they pick an SP, it'll be one who's very savvy and they have complete control over (through blackmail or threat of harm to them and their family). The GOPe will approve of the person without reservation.
Valerie Plame got one and he knew the outcome even before he started the investigation. He was able to “trap” Sotter Libby into a “LIE”, so called. The RATS know how to play for keeps, the Gelding Old Party not so much.
According to this:
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43112.pdf
Congress has no authority to appoint a special prosecutor, or any other such prosecutor. Congress can pass laws that govern the appointment of such prosecutors, but not appoint one on their own.
I am not an expert in this area, but I do suspect that a large part of the frustration voiced here at FR about congress “not doing anything” stems from the idea that the House of Representatives has the authority to appoint a special prosecutor. They do not, at least that is my (unexpert) reading of the link.
If there are any real consitutional lawyers out there who can clarify, please weigh in on this matter.
There are several cases in the Courts already, and neither Holder or Obama have any say in those cases at all.
NO, Congress alone can not appoint a special prosecutor.
As soon as the RATs are told that the special prosecutor will be of their choice they will be OK with it.
I hear what you are saying about congress. If the president can violate the constitution and get away with it, the congress can also make things up as they go along too.
That is the sort of dilemma discussed at great length over at Belmont Club in regard to the “war on terror.” If one side of a conflict persistently violates certain limits of behavior, eventually the other side may be compelled to violate those limits of behavior. Part of the dilemma in that scenario is that transgressing those limits on both sides may have even worse consequences.
I stand for the Constitution. My oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution has no expiration date. I do not want to confront a breech of the Constitution with another breech of the Constitution. What then are we fighting for? It is intensely frustrating, but I don’t have an easy answer for it.
I doubt the Judicial Watch case will have any kind of live coverage. I am eager to hear what the outcome is. If I remember correctly this judge is the one who was rather tough on the prosecutors in the Senator Stevens case. I think tomorrow’s motion has to do with the True the Vote suit, and I believe also has to do with the destruction of evidence and expedited discovery. Let’s hope they both go in our direction.
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.