Investigating the IRS: The fix is in
Break out the hip boots. For things have gotten deep in the Justice Department's now clearly faux investigation of the Internal Revenue Service for improperly targeting tea party groups seeking tax-exempt status during the 2012 election cycle.
Fast on the heels of appointing a “ringer” prosecutor to handle the case — civil rights trial lawyer Barbara Bosserman, who was a hardly insignificant donor to President Obama's two White House runs and the national Democratic Party — comes an investigation-corrupting leak from, gee, we can only guess where:
The FBI has no plans to file criminal charges in the case, The Wall Street Journal reports.
“While the case is still being investigated and could remain open for months, officials familiar with its progress said it is increasingly unlikely that any criminal charges will result,” the newspaper reported Monday.
What makes the news all the more farcical is that some of the targeted conservative groups say they've only recently been contacted by the feds or not at all.
And do remember, as Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, reminded, that “these leaks come after the Justice Department, citing the confidential nature of the investigation, refused to brief Congress on its progress.”
Indeed, the fix is in — surely it was from the start — and the whitewash is being applied by the pallet.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Recasting the EPA: Devolving power to the states
- Another carbon credit scheme
- School funding canard: Money isn’t the answer
- Rick Perry’s indictment: The real abuse
- The Thursday Wrap
- More foreign aid is no answer to border problem
- Saturday essay: For the birds
- Another LCB fumble: The status-quo stupor
- Tuesday essay: Sophie