The IRS mess: Name a special prosecutor
Mounting evidence in the IRS targeting scandal increasingly suggests politically motivated coordination, collusion and perhaps even conspiracy. And that makes clearer than ever the need for a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of this affair.
Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., contends newly released emails show his House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's ranking Democrat, Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, worked with the IRS to attack True the Vote, a conservative group that sought tax-exempt status.
Mr. Issa also contends Mr. Cummings and the IRS improperly kept the committee in the dark about those contacts — and that the IRS improperly discussed confidential taxpayer information in working with Cummings.
Meanwhile, the House Ways and Means Committee has referred the case of now-retired IRS official Lois Lerner, who was in charge of decisions on tax-exempt status, to the Justice Department for prosecution. It did so after uncovering new evidence that she worked actively with liberal groups to target Karl Rove's conservative Crossroads GPS for extra scrutiny.
But Justice can't be trusted to investigate this scandal, much less prosecute. And these latest revelations make Attorney General Eric Holder's March refusal to appoint a special prosecutor seem even more damningly self-serving.
Until a special prosecutor uncompromised by Holder's obvious conflict of interest is appointed, the notion that the IRS indeed has something to hide will only be reinforced.
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.
- The Thursday wrap
- Fresh produce solution
- State of Corruption: Jim Short’s plea
- Thou shalt not parse the First: The Connellsville Ten Commandments decision
- James Harrison’s most valuable lesson
- U.N. Watch: What travel ban?
- Witnesses can help
- Trumpeting ObamaCare: The Medicaid factor
- U.N. Watch: More propaganda
- The Kane case: Distractions mount
- The DHS crackdown