by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Ron DeSantis (R., Fla.) chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security and Jim Jordan (R., Ohio), chairman of the Subcommittee on Health Care, Benefits, and Administrative Rules, also recently called on President Obama to remove John Koskinen from the head of the IRS. Alternatively, they propose Congressional impeachment if Obama does not due his due diligence and remove Koskinen himself.
DeSantis and Jordan made their case in the pages of the Wall Street Journal and is reprinted below in its entirety, as it provided a thorough summation of Koskinen’s incompetence:
“Internal Revenue Service Commissioner John Koskinen needs to go.
When it was revealed in 2013 that the IRS had targeted conservative groups for exercising their First Amendment rights, President Obama correctly called the policy “inexcusable” and pledged accountability. He even fired the then-acting IRS commissioner because he said it was necessary to have “new leadership that can help restore confidence going forward.”
Unfortunately, Commissioner Koskinen, who took over in the wake of the IRS targeting scandal, has failed the American people by frustrating Congress’s attempts to ascertain the truth. A taxpayer would never get away with treating an IRS audit the way that IRS officials have treated the congressional investigation. Civil officers like Mr. Koskinen have historically been held to a higher standard than private citizens because they have fiduciary obligations to the public. The IRS and Mr. Koskinen have breached these basic fiduciary duties:
• Destruction of evidence. Lois Lerner, at the time the director of the IRS’s exempt-organizations unit, invoked the Fifth Amendment on May 22, 2013, when appearing before Congress; her refusal to testify put a premium on obtaining and reviewing her email communications. On the same day the IRS’s chief technology officer issued a preservation order that instructed IRS employees “not to destroy/wipe/reuse any of the existing backup tapes for email, or archiving of other information from IRS personal computers.”
Several weeks later, on Aug. 2, the House Oversight Committee issued its first subpoena for IRS documents, including all of Ms. Lerner’s emails. On Feb. 2, 2014, Kate Duval, the IRS commissioner’s counsel, identified a gap in the Lerner emails that were being collected. Days later, Ms. Duval learned that the gap had been caused in 2011 when the hard drive of Ms. Lerner’s computer crashed.
Despite all this—an internal IRS preservation order, a congressional subpoena, and knowledge about Ms. Lerner’s hard-drive and email problems—the Treasury inspector general for tax administration discovered that the agency on March 4, 2014, erased 422 backup tapes containing as many as 24,000 emails. (Congress learned of the discovery only last month.)
Ms. Duval has since left the IRS and now works at the State Department, where she is responsible for vetting Hillary Clinton’s emails sought by congressional investigations of the Benghazi attacks.
• Failure to inform Congress. Mr. Koskinen was made aware of the problems associated with Ms. Lerner’s emails the same month Ms. Duval discovered the gap. Yet the IRS withheld the information from Congress for four months, until June 13, 2014, when the agency used a Friday news dump to admit—on page seven of the third attachment to a letter sent to the Senate Finance Committee—that it had lost many of Ms. Lerner’s emails.
During that four-month delay, Mr. Koskinen testified before Congress under oath four times. On March 26, 2014, he appeared before the Oversight Committee and pledged that the IRS would produce all of Ms. Lerner’s emails, not mentioning that the IRS already knew of the problems with her emails and hard drive. Mr. Koskinen deliberately kept Congress in the dark. Based on testimony received by the committee, we now know that the IRS appears to have spent the four months working with the Obama administration to fine-tune talking points to mitigate the fallout.
• False testimony before Congress. Mr. Koskinen made statements to Congress that were categorically false. Of the more than 1,000 computer backup tapes discovered by the IRS inspector general, approximately 700 hadn’t been erased and contained relevant information. But Mr. Koskinen testified he had “confirmed” that all of the tapes were unrecoverable.
He also said: “We’ve gone to great lengths, spent a significant amount of money trying to make sure that there is no email that is required that has not been produced.” In reality, the inspector general found that Mr. Koskinen’s team failed to search several potential sources for Ms. Lerner’s emails, including the email server, her BlackBerry and the Martinsburg, W.Va., storage facility that housed the backup tapes.
The 700 intact backup tapes the inspector general recovered were found within 15 days of the IRS’s informing Congress that they were not recoverable. Employees from the inspector general’s office simply drove to Martinsburg and asked for the tapes. It turns out that the IRS had never even asked whether the tapes existed.
Three weeks after the 422 other backup tapes were destroyed by the IRS, Mr. Koskinen told the committee that he would produce “all” Lerner documents. This statement was clearly false—you can’t give Congress “all” of the material if you know that you have already destroyed some of it.
• Failure to correct the record. After his false statements to Congress under oath, Mr. Koskinen refused to amend them when given the opportunity at a public hearing earlier this year. If a lawyer makes a false statement to a court, he has a duty to correct it. Civil officers like Commissioner Koskinen have a duty to the American people to revise their testimony when it contains inaccuracies.
• Failure to reform the IRS to protect First Amendment rights. Mr. Koskinen hasn’t acted on the president’s May 2013 promise to “put in place new safeguards to make sure this kind of behavior cannot happen again.” A Government Accountability Office report released last week found that the IRS continues to lack the controls necessary to prevent unfair treatment of nonprofit groups on the basis of an “organization’s religious, educational, political, or other views.” In other words, the targeting of conservative groups may very well continue.
If the president doesn’t remove Mr. Koskinen from his post, then Congress should remove him through impeachment. The impeachment power is a political check that, as Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 65 in 1788, protects the public against “the abuse or violation of some public trust.”
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story echoed Hamilton in 1833 when he distinguished impeachable offenses from criminal offenses, noting that they “are aptly termed political offenses, growing out of personal misconduct or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard for the public interests . . . They must be examined upon very broad and comprehensive principles of public policy and duty.”
John Koskinen has violated the public trust, breached his fiduciary obligations and demonstrated his unfitness to serve. Mr. President, it’s time for Commissioner Koskinen to go. If you don’t act, we will.”
by | BLOG, CONSTITUTION, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
A few days ago, I wrote about the Senate Finance Committee report, which revealed that ten groups have yet to receive tax exempt approval — some waiting as long as five years. ATR had also delved into that report, and found only one conservative group actually received approval in a three year interval with Lois Lerner at the helm:
The report by the Senate Finance Committee revealed that,
“Due to the circuitous process implemented by Lerner, only one conservative political advocacy organization was granted tax-exempt status between February 2009 and May 2012. Lerner’s bias against these applicants unquestionably led to these delays, and is particularly evident when compared to the IRS’s treatment of other applications, discussed immediately below.”
and furthermore:
“The unfortunate consequence of imposing this highly rigid and unorthodox process on EO Determinations was that many Tea Party applications that could have been decided in 2010 were not. Rather, those Tea Party applications unnecessarily languished for several more years, while the IRS mismanaged its way through a series of failed initiatives designed to bring the applications to decision.”
Not all groups received such treatment:
“Although applications from the Tea Party and conservative organizations languished at the IRS, this was not the case for all groups that applied. In cases where the IRS wanted to act quickly, it did – particularly for other high-profile applications that attracted political attention.”
And don’t forget Obama’s brother was fast-tracked in 2011 for approval in 30 days!
Yet, as I noted earlier, the assessment of Lerner’s misdealings by Senate investigators was particularly weak. She was chastised for failing to “adequately manage the EO employees who processed these applications”, her handling of applications “was flawed in design and/or mismanagement”, and she showed “little emphasis” on “providing good customer service.”
Heads should roll. But they won’t, ever. The scandal is two years old now — which is ancient in the political world. People have moved on from their outrage and they are now focused mainly on 2016. The scandal is barely covered in the news anymore. It’s outrageous.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
During oral arguments of the Burwell v Obamacare case before the Supreme Court, the U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli made the case that the “court should defer to the interpretation of the Internal Revenue Service, which said the tax credits apply nationwide.” When the Obamacare decision was announced, it is clear that SCOTUS did apply deference, which was absolutely the worst possible solution.
The idea of “deference” refers “ to “Chevron deference,” “a doctrine mostly unknown beyond the halls of the Capitol and the corridors of the Supreme Court. It refers to a 1984 decision, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and it is one of the most widely cited cases in law. Boiled down, it says that when a law is ambiguous, judges should defer to the agency designated to implement it so long as the agency’s decision is reasonable.”
Given the current catastrophic state of the IRS, SCOTUS should have run from this idea as quickly as possible. The IRS has proven overwhelmingly in the last few years that no decision it makes is “reasonable” and therefore cannot be trusted as an unbiased, independent agency capable of carrying out a professional opinion on this or virtually any manner.
Even more unfortunately, not only did SCOTUS apply deference, which allowed the IRS rule to stand, it did so by taking expanding the concept of “Chevron Deference” even further in order to validate its decision. George Will, in a column written just after the Obamacare ruling was handed down, described how the decision now allows the executive branch to apply deference in situations that are not just ambiguous, but also “inconvenient for the smooth operation of something Congress created.” This is not interpreting law — this is legislating.
Therefore, the actions of the IRS — that is, willy-nilly creating rules which expanded the scope of Obamacare beyond its text — were indeed endorsed and given political cover by Roberts and his majority as they applied Chevron Deference. Instead of sending Obamacare back to the legislature for clarification, the judicial branch decided to step in and interpret the law for the sake of alleviating “inconvenience”. But this is wrong. Convenience, ease, and expediency should never be a rationale for the judicial branch to go beyond the scope of deciding whether or not a law is constitutional, as they did here.
The judicial branch, with this decision, seemed to act more in harmony with the legislative and executive one, instead of serving as a check against the others. What’s more, “besides violating the separation of powers, this approach raises serious issues about whether litigants before the courts are receiving the process that is due to them under the Constitution. It would result if its branches behaved as partners in harness rather than as wary, balancing rivals maintaining constitutional equipoise.”
Will summed up the damage Roberts has done, which is likely to have lasting effects in the courts for years to come. Roberts goes “beyond “understanding” the plan; he adopts a legislator’s role in order to rescue the legislature’s plan from the consequences of the legislature’s dubious decisions. By blurring, to the point of erasure, constitutional boundaries, he damages all institutions, not least his court.”
How the Supreme Court uses and applies Chevron Deference in the coming years, in the way they did with this decision, will be especially interesting, given the expanded roles of many government agencies such as the EPA and FCC.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
I really enjoyed this column by George Will, which was published soon after the Obamacare decision. Will explores how the decision exemplifies how Chief Justice Roberts embraced and expanded the concept of “Chevron Deference”, which, he contends, will have a lasting affect on future court decisions.
For those of you who don’t know, Chevron Deference basically says that agencies charged with administering statutes are entitled to deference when they interpret ambiguous statutory language. Will charges that the decision now allows the executive branch to apply deference in situations that are not just ambiguous, also “inconvenient for the smooth operation of something Congress created.” Check out the column below:
Conservatives are dismayed about the Supreme Court’s complicity in rewriting the Affordable Care Act — its ratification of the IRS’s disregard of the statute’s plain and purposeful language. But they have contributed to this outcome. Their decades of populist praise of judicial deference to the political branches has borne this sour fruit.
The court says the ACA’s stipulation that subsidies are to be administered by the IRS using exchanges “established by the State” should not be construed to mean what it says. Otherwise the law will not reach as far as it will if federal exchanges can administer subsidies in states that choose not to establish exchanges. The ACA’s legislative history, however, demonstrates that the subsidies were deliberately restricted to distribution through states’ exchanges in order to pressure the states into establishing their own exchanges.
The most durable damage from Thursday’s decision is not the perpetuation of the ACA, which can be undone by what created it — legislative action. The paramount injury is the court’s embrace of a duty to ratify and even facilitate lawless discretion exercised by administrative agencies and the executive branch generally.
The court’s decision flowed from many decisions by which the judiciary has written rules that favor the government in cases of statutory construction. The decision also resulted from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s embrace of the doctrine that courts, owing vast deference to the purposes of the political branches, are obligated to do whatever is required to make a law efficient, regardless of how the law is written. What Roberts does by way of, to be polite, creative construing (Justice Antonin Scalia, dissenting, calls it “somersaults of statutory interpretation”) is legislating, not judging.
Roberts writes, almost laconically, that the ACA “contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting.” That is his artful way of treating “inartful” as a synonym for “inconvenient” or even “self-defeating.”
Rolling up the sleeves of his black robe and buckling down to the business of redrafting the ACA, Roberts invents a corollary to “Chevron deference.”
Named for a 1984 case, Chevron deference has become central to the way today’s regulatory state functions. It says that agencies charged with administering statutes are entitled to deference when they interpret ambiguous statutory language. While purporting to not apply Chevron, Roberts expands it to empower all of the executive branch to ignore or rewrite congressional language that is not at all ambiguous but is inconvenient for the smooth operation of something Congress created. Exercising judicial discretion in the name of deference, Roberts enlarges executive discretion. He does so by validating what the IRS did when it ignored the ACA’s text in order to disburse billions of dollars of subsidies through federal exchanges not established by the states.
Chevron deference does for executive agencies what the “rational basis” test, another judicial invention, does for legislative discretion.
Since the New Deal, courts have permitted almost any legislative infringement of economic liberty that can be said to have a rational basis. Applying this extremely permissive test, courts usually approve any purpose that a legislature asserts. Courts even concoct purposes that legislatures neglect to articulate. This fulfills the Roberts Doctrine that it is a judicial function to construe laws in ways that make them perform better, meaning more efficiently, than they would as written by Congress.
Thursday’s decision demonstrates how easily, indeed inevitably, judicial deference becomes judicial dereliction, with anticonstitutional consequences. We are, says William R. Maurer of the Institute for Justice, becoming “a country in which all the branches of government work in tandem to achieve policy outcomes, instead of checking one another to protect individual rights. Besides violating the separation of powers, this approach raises serious issues about whether litigants before the courts are receiving the process that is due to them under the Constitution. It would result if its branches behaved as partners in harness rather than as wary, balancing rivals maintaining constitutional equipoise.
Roberts says “we must respect the role of the Legislature” but “[A] fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan.” However, he goes beyond “understanding” the plan; he adopts a legislator’s role in order to rescue the legislature’s plan from the consequences of the legislature’s dubious decisions. By blurring, to the point of erasure, constitutional boundaries, he damages all institutions, not least his court.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
The SCOTUS ruling against the EPA was a breath of fresh air (see what I did there?). Before adjourning until October, the Supreme Court decided that recent EPA rules did not consider cost compliance. The Washington Examiner had a good overview of the ruling. This decision will likely affect other recent EPA rules.
“The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against Environmental Protection Agency pollution rules for power plants Monday, in a blow to President Obama’s environmental agenda.
The majority decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, said the EPA has to consider the costs of complying with the rules and sent the air pollution regulations back to the agency.
The EPA rules in question regulate hazardous air pollutants and mercury from coal- and oil-fired power plants, known as the MATS regulations. The regulations went into effect April 16. The utility industry had argued that the rules cost them billions of dollars to comply and that EPA ignored the cost issue in putting the regulations into effect.
“EPA must consider cost — including cost of compliance — before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary. It will be up to the agency to decide (as always, within the limits of reasonable interpretation) how to account for cost,” Scalia wrote in agreeing with the industry.
The decision will have repercussions for other EPA regulations that are key to Obama’s climate change agenda. The EPA will now have to examine the cost of compliance for the Clean Power Plan, which is at the heart of the president’s environmental agenda.
Many of the companies have either made the investments or closed power plants to comply. If the investments necessary to upgrade a plant to comply with the regulation aren’t justified when considering the operational costs, revenues earned and other factors, then the decision is made to retire it.
The D.C. Circuit Court Appeals favored the EPA in a previous lawsuit filed by the industry, attempting to overturn the rules, which is why they took it to the Supreme Court to decide the cost issue.
The D.C. Circuit was split in its decision, but the majority ruling prevailed. At the center of the case is the question of whether the regulation of hazardous air pollutants from electric utilities are “appropriate and necessary.” On that issue the court was split, but a two-judge majority agreed that the EPA could ignore costs in determining whether to regulate the utility sector.
The D.C. Circuit majority also agreed the EPA could focus solely on the utilities’ contribution to the pollutants of concern, rather than identifying any specific health hazards attributable only to utility emissions.
The EPA had argued that the rules are both appropriate and necessary regardless of the costs, and that it has the discretion under the law to act as it deems fit in regulating hazardous pollutants.”
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
Chief Justice Roberts on Obamacare in 2012: “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”
This line famously echoed in Robert’s majority the first time Obamacare came before the Supreme Court, pointing out that it is not the business of the Supreme Court of the United States to fix laws (good or bad) that Congress passes.
Three years later, Roberts made an about-face on this exact point essentially saying with his decision that Obamacare is a bad law and poorly written — so we will fix it.
It really is a fascinating thing. First we have Pelosi saying we have to pass the law to see what is in it. And then when we actually get to see and experience the incoherence of the law, Roberts declares that Congress’s stupidity is not his job to fix.
But then the problem became that the Senate didn’t actually have the votes to fix it properly or repeal it entirely. Congress discovered that the law which was passed (state exchanges only) was not the version Congress wanted (federal exchanges too), but the Senate couldn’t get the 60 votes they needed to pass the version they wanted, especially after the Republicans lost Massachusetts a couple years ago.
So good old Roberts gifted them what they needed to have the law that they should have written with this recent opinion. And for Robert’s act of judicial overreach and maneuvering, Scalia’s dissent was particularly scathing:
“Rather than rewriting the law under the pretense of interpreting it, the Court should have left it to Congress to decide what to do about the Act’s limitation of tax credits to state Exchanges…The Court’s insistence on making a choice that should be made by Congress both aggrandizes judicial power and encourages congressional lassitude…
Just ponder the significance of the Court’s decision to take matters into its own hands. The Court’s revision of the law authorizes the Internal Revenue Service to spend tens of billions of dollars every year in tax credits on federal Exchanges. It affects the price of insurance for millions of Americans. It diminishes the participation of the States in the implementation of the Act. It vastly expands the reach of the Act’s individual mandate, whose scope depends in part on the availability of credit…
But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites. I dissent.”
Scalia was particularly clear that the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to insert themselves into the legislative branch. Put another way, Chief Justice Roberts became the 60th vote in the Senate.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
From Scotusblog:
Decision of the Fourth Circuit is affirmed in King v. Burwell. 6-3.
This means that individuals who get their health insurance through an exchange established by the federal government will be eligible for tax subsidies.
Chief Justice writes for the Court. Six are the Chief, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
Dissent by Scalia, joined by Alito and Thomas.
Court refused to apply Chevron deference — that is, to find that the statute is ambiguous and that the federal government’s interpretation was reasonable.
From Scalia’s dissent: “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.” From the intro to Scalia’s dissent: the majority’s reading of the text “is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so.”
From the majority opinion: “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them.”
The majority also acknowledges that the challengers’ “arguments about the plain meaning . . . are strong.”
‘In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase’…
The opinion is here
Justice Scalia’s dissent, via the WSJ:
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA
In the past couple of months, I drew attention to a case that would be decided by the Supreme Court this term, which I felt was probably the biggest property-rights case since the Kelo decision 10 years ago. You can read the background here. In sum, the property in question this time is not land, but raisins. A couple, the Hornes, who were raisin farmers in California were fined for declining to participate in a government sponsored raisin regulatory group in existence since the Truman Administration.
Writing a letter to the Agriculture Department, they called the program “a tool for grower bankruptcy, poverty, and involuntary servitude.” The raisin police were not amused. The Raisin Administrative Committee sent a truck to seize raisins off their farm and, when that failed, it demanded that the family pay the government the dollar value of the raisins instead.”
This morning, SCOTUS ruled 8-1 in favor of the raisin growers, the Hornes. The majority opinion found “that the Agriculture Department program, which seizes excess raisins from producers in order to prop up market prices during bumper crop years, amounted to an unconstitutional government “taking.”
But they limited their verdict to raisins, lest they simultaneously overturn other government programs that limit production of goods without actually seizing private property.
The 8-1 decision was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, with the court’s more conservative justices in agreement. Roberts said the government violates citizens’ rights when it seizes personal property — say, a car — as well as real property such as a house.
While the government can regulate production in order to keep goods off the market, the chief justice said it cannot seize that property without compensation.”
Only Sotomayor dissented. She did not recognize the government’s fines a form of taking, saying that the rule “only applies where all property rights have been destroyed by governmental action.” In saying so, she indicated that the Hornes did retain some of their property rights, a logic that mirrored the ridiculousness of the Ninth’s Circuits’ opinion.
You can read the full court ruling here. The best quote goes to Justice Clarence Thomas who noted in his concurrence to the majority opinion, that “having the Court of Appeals calculate “just compensation” in this case would be a fruitless exercise.“
by | ARTICLES, CONSTITUTION, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA
I’ve been pondering the recent Harry Reid episode, where Harry Reid discussed the incident from 2012 when he openly lied about Mitt Romney not filing tax returns for 10 years. Harry Reid completely justified his behavior by stating to CNN’s Dana Bash, “”I don’t regret that at all. Romney didn’t win did he?”
How utterly different would the story be if a Republican Senator had lied in this fashion? It is absolutely incredible that Harry Reid wasn’t called out for his shameful lies. What’s more, when Romney did release his taxes shortly thereafter, disproving Harry Reid, no one issued any retraction for the blatant falsehoods.
Reid egregiously lied about the matter on three separate occasions during the 2012 Presidential election season. First, he stated in July of 2012, that Romney “didn’t pay taxes for 10 years. Now do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain, but obviously he can’t release those tax returns. How would it look?”
A few days later, he spoke on the floor of the Senate, saying, “”If a person coming before this body wanted to be a Cabinet officer, he couldn’t be if he had the same refusal Mitt Romney does about tax returns. So the word is out that he has not paid any taxes for 10 years. Let him prove he has paid taxes, because he has not.”
And shortly thereafter, he referred to a unnamed, “extremely credible source” who told Reid that Romney had not paid his taxes for a decade.
This was no offhanded remark. It was a deliberate, intentional, conscious campaign to speak falsely about Mitt Romney in an effort to discredit him.
What could be considered more of an outright criminal activity than a Senator who chose to willfully lie in an attempt to influence a federal election? For someone in his position in the United States Congress, his action is an outrage. Where is the Department of Justice and the Federal Election Commission when you need them!
It’s equally distressing to consider that so many people heard Harry Reid’s accusations and just blindly accepted it. It speaks to their own bias that when they found out they had been lied to, no one was really infuriated that they were openly, blatantly manipulated.
For people to know that Harry Reid is a cheat and a liar, and yet accept his actions because the ends justified the means — what does this say about their integrity? About the credibility of this country? Have we become so cynical that we just accept this level of lying now as “politics as usual?” How can anyone actually be okay with any person, even and especially a US Senator, outright lying in order to manipulate the outcome of an election?
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Eric Holder recently announced his plan to move forward with prosecuting “campaign-finance “coordination” between candidates and outside groups.” This is ridiculous.
Holder has the time to do this, but yet he hasn’t even begun to compose a report on the IRS — which everyone now knows is full of very serious breaches of impropriety.
How can he find the time to develop the politically charged concept of coordination (with no real evidence); investigations are based merely on supposition. In contrast, we have actual facts and actions with regard to the IRS fiasco — which was also politically charged — and Holder has done nothing so far.
Even the WSJ recognizes the farce that this “coordination” campaign is, pointing out that “the federal government can subpoena your documents, email, computers and bank records in a political fishing expedition conducted by the FBI.”
And more: “A coordination investigation can be started on almost any pretext. All you need is an allegation that someone talked to someone they should not have. Once the investigation makes it over that low evidentiary hurdle, the feds can comb through every shred of personal and group communications to find illegal contact.”
Why is the same diligence not being applied to the substantiated, documented IRS abuses? Where is the Department of Justice report on this egregious overreach by another federal department?
Unfortunately, we already know the answer.
2015/2016 is shaping up to be a particularly nasty election cycle. You can read the scathing WSJ opinion on the matter of “coordination” here:
