I suppose you can be this blatant when you own the Justice Department

You can appoint someone from the wrong unit within DoJ to conduct the investigation into political targeting:
The same source also acknowledge that choosing Bosserman to head a probe of the IRS is “extremely odd” because the more logical choice would have been someone from the Public Integrity unit of the Department's Criminal Division.

Even though she has maxed out her legal donations to the Obama campaign:
Officials at the Justice Department, though, have defended Bosserman's donations, saying that she was exercising her constitutional rights to make political contributions. Further, officials said it is a "prohibited personnel practice under federal law" to consider political affiliation or other "non-merit" factors when making personnel decisions or assigning cases.

In other words, if they did what it looks like they did, it would be illegal, so obviously they must not have done it, no matter what it looks like.
And the suppression they are supposed to be investigating continues:
The Citizen's United ruling occurred on Jan. 21, 2010. The IRS began targeting conservative groups two months later. More to the point, as recently as last August, testimony taken from an IRS agent involved in reviewing tax exempt applications from conservative groups revealed the that agency targeting of Tea Party groups remains ongoing. The agent admitted that based on his “current manager's direction,” even an application from a Tea Party group that showed no evidence of political activity would still be sent to “secondary screening, political advocacy.”

Furthermore, it is possible the IRS may be singling out individuals as well. Frank VanderSloot, an Idaho businessman who contributed to a group in 2011 supporting Mitt Romney, not only ended up on an Obama campaign website suggesting he and seven other Romney supporter had “less-than-reputable” records, but he was notified that he would be audited by the IRS and the Department of Labor. The latter audit involved checks of three Mexican workers based at his Idaho ranch that he hired under the H-2A visa program for temporary agricultural workers.

Bill Elliot, an Obama voter and a Stage IV cancer patient criticized the president on Fox News after he lost his healthcare insurance in the middle of cancer treatments due to ObamaCare. Elliot is scheduled to be audited by the IRS in 2014 for his 2009 return, assuming he lives that long. After Elliot's appearance on Fox News, insurance agent C. Steven Tucker saw the story and helped Elliot keep his insurance. Tucker is also being audited by the IRS going back to 2003.

Right now it's looking like the checks and balances that are supposed to restrict the powers of government only apply when one party is in power. And it is so important to the government to keep the suppression in place through 2014 that they are willing to sacrifice Obamacare funding -- funding the effort desperately needs in order to implement a functional website:
Congressional sources tell me that House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R., Ky.) had two priorities in the omnibus negotiations. One was getting in protection for groups that morally oppose ObamaCare's contraception-coverage requirement. The other was language that would put a hold on the IRS rule.

The White House and Senate Democrats had their own wish list, including an increase in funding for the International Monetary Fund, the president's prekindergarten program and more ObamaCare dollars.

Yet my sources say that throughout the negotiations Democrats went all in on keeping the IRS rule, even though it meant losing their own priorities. In the final hours before the omnibus was introduced Monday night, the administration made a last push for IMF money. Asked to negotiate that demand in the context of new IRS language, it refused.

We'll never get impeachment through the Senate with the Democrats in power, and the Republican leadership won't even try. The suppression of tea party voters is intensifying in the run-up to the 2014 midterm elections, and the chances of taking the Senate and electing competent Republican leadership in the House seem low.

Maybe we can prosecute him once he leaves office. If we don't, then we no longer have a Republic.

This entry was published Mon Jan 20 07:30:37 CST 2014 by TriggerFinger and last updated 2014-01-20 07:30:37.0. [Tweet]

comments powered by Disqus

Subscribe to Atom Feed

I am not a lawyer, and nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice.

This site is run on custom blog software and is being actively developed. Please be forgiving of errors.

This website is an Amazon affiliate and will receive financial compensation for products purchased from Amazon through links on this site.