The IRS scandal: The gun smokes
Were they simply discussions of procedural matters in advance of prospective legal action against bona fide rules violations? Or are those discussions evidence of a federal conspiracy hatched by Democrats to silence conservative critics?
Shockingly, emails obtained by Judicial Watch more than suggest the latter and that the gun smokes.
The Internal Revenue Service first attempted to silence conservative groups by slow-walking or outright sitting on their applications for tax-exempt nonprofit status. Invocations of the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination raised that red flag high with Lois Lerner, once the chief of the IRS's nonprofit division.
But now come emails obtained by the watchdog group showing an attempt to coordinate the selective harassment of conservative groups, based on a legally thin claim that they had lied on their applications. The idea appears to have had its genesis with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., but was entertained by the IRS, the Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission.
The feds considered prosecuting groups based not on any real violations of the law but on their political persuasions.
“These new emails show that the day before she broke the news of the IRS scandal, Lois Lerner was talking to a top Obama Justice Department official about whether the DOJ could prosecute the very same organizations that the IRS had already improperly targeted,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
No one can doubt any longer that this case requires a special prosecutor.
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.
- For U.S. House in Ohio & West Virginia: Bill Johnson and David McKinley
- McCaffery’s suspension: Castille’s concurrence
- Mass shootings: Cooked numbers
- Saturday essay: A box of Halloween
- U.N. Watch: Gun-grabbers unite!
- For the Pennsylvania House: Ortitay, Krieger and Logan