Townhall released an article claiming to be Issa's questions to Lois Lerner:
1. In October 2010, Lerner told a Duke University group: “The Supreme Court dealt a huge blow, overturning a 100-year-old precedent that basically corporations couldn’t give directly to political campaigns. And everyone is up in arms because they don’t like it. The Federal Election Commission can’t do anything about it. They want the IRS to fix the problem.”
I think anyone who thinks that graft and corruption should be illegal should be concerned about the outcome of Citizens United. Not only for it's extension of corporate personhood to companies, but for it's claim that money = privileged (!) speech -- and the court's corrupt denial in that case that undue access or influence is corruption. But Issa took her comments out of context.
Who exactly wanted the IRS to “fix the problem” caused by Citizens United?
Even the Breitbart source [http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/08/06/Lois-Lerner-Discusses-Political-Pressure-on-the-IRS-in-2010] for the leak (not exactly paragons of virtue) answers this question:
"Lerner goes on to outline the fact that 501(c)(4) organizations have the right to do "an ad that says vote for Joe Blow" so long as their primary activity is social welfare. However Lerner again emphasizes the political pressure the IRS was under at the time saying, "So everybody is screaming at us right now 'Fix it now before the election. Can't you see how much these people are spending?'" Lerner concludes by saying she won't know if organizations have gone too far in campaigning until she looks at their "990s next year."
Fact is the entire progressive wing of the Democratic party plus any remaining honest conservatives were screaming that we need to do something about the legalized graft that is the corrupt Citizens United Decision and subsequent rulings eviscerating 200 years of efforts to get graft, bribery, undue influence and extortion under control in our government. It is WE THE PEOPLE (other than corrupt Tea Baggers of course) demanding change.
Issa alleges:
2. In February 2011, Lerner e-mailed her colleagues in the IRS: “Tea Party Matter very dangerous. This could be the vehicle to go to court on the issue of whether Citizens United overturning the ban on corporate spending applies to tax-exempt rules. Counsel and Judy Kindell need to be in on this one please. Cincy should probably NOT have these cases.”
Issa then mistates her statement:
Why did Lerner think the Tea Party cases were “very dangerous”?
The Tea Party are dangerous because they are litigious, subversive, incendiary, insurrectionist, and because they own at least some of the Supreme Court Justices (Thomas). I think anyone observing their behavior since the judicial coup of 2000 can observe that.
3. In September 2010, Lerner e-mailed subordinates about initiating a “c4 project,” but wrote: “we need to be cautious so it isn’t a per se political project.”
The reason for the project is that 90% of the 501(C)(4) organizations are not primarily promoting social welfare but pushing the agendas of the rich and powerful:
In general. An organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of the people of the community. An organization embraced within this section is one which is operated primarily for the purpose of bringing about civic betterments and social improvements. A social welfare organization will qualify for exemption as a charitable organization if it falls within the definition of charitable set forth in paragraph (d)(2) of § 1.501(c)(3)-1 and is not an action organization as set forth in paragraph (c)(3) of § 1.501(c)(3)-1. [http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.501(c)(4)-1]
So:
Why was Lerner worried about this being perceived as a political project?
Because any effort to reign in abuses of the 501(c)(4) provisions could easily be interpreted as partisanship, as Issa is doing now.
Subsequent events have pretty much born out her rationale for worrying about this.
4. Michael Seto, manager of EO Technical in Washington, testified that you ordered Tea Party cases to undergo a “multi-tier review.” He testified: “[Lerner] sent me email saying that when these cases need to go through multi-tier review and they will eventually have to go to Miss Kindell and the chief counsel’s office.”
And yet most of these organizations eventually got approved despite their obvious partisan nature. In fact the only cases turned down were progressive organizations.
Why did Lerner order the Tea Party cases to undergo a “multi-tier review”?
It's called due diligence. Something Fire-Bug Grand Theft Auto Issa doesn't feel necessary in his own efforts.
5. In June 2011, Lerner requested that Holly Paz obtain a copy of the tax-exempt application filed by Crossroads GPS so that her senior technical advisor, Judy Kindell, could review it and summarize the issues for Lerner.
Probably because Crossroads GPS's application was so obviously not about an organization promoting the "social welfare" that it's irregularities were obvious even to folks not directly concerned with them.
- See these references for some articles on Crossroads GPS and their blatant FEC violations:
- http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/06/21/9168/nonprofit-profile-crossroads-gps?gclid=CM_ghqn3hL0CFQ2hOgodCG8A0Q
- http://www.factcheck.org/tag/crossroads-gps/
- Third Complaint to FEC
"Crossroads GPS contends that all its ads are “issue ads,” which are “a position statement about, or a discussion of, public issues.” But CREW alleges that the three ads constitute independent expenditures, which are communications “expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate.”
Why did Lerner want to have the Crossroads GPS application?
And of course with our Supreme Court dominated by Grafter Judges legalizing Grafts the entire 501 section of the legal code could be in jeopardy if the issue went before that corrupt court.
Issa then says:
6. In June 2012, Lerner was part of an e-mail exchange about writing new regulations on political speech for 501(c)(4) groups “off-plan” in 2013.
Anyone involved with Government knows that bureaucrats are discussing regulations all the time. It's a non issue that they discussed "about writing new regulations" before they wrote the regulations.
Doesn’t this “off-plan” effort from 2012 contradict Administration assertions that new regulations were written in response to the 2013 TIGTA report?
More than likely those discussions went into writing the TIGTA report. Issa is blowing smoke.
7. In February 2014, President Obama stated that there was not a “smidgeon of corruption” in the IRS targeting.
Considering the IRS also targeted progressive groups doing the same sorts of tactics. Issa's comments are trying to criminalize the invocation of the 5th amendment. She has the right to refuse to testify about things that can and will be deliberately misconstrued and twisted into criminal behavior if they get in socipath Issa's hands.
If this is true, why do House Democrats believe that Lois Lerner has a well-founded fear of criminal prosecution that allows her to claim the Fifth Amendment in refusing to testify?
And indeed Lerner stated she was willing to testify if the Committee would guarantee they wouldn't misconstrue her testimony. She could be revealing something illegal that I don't know about yet, but so far I don't see anything coming out that the public hasn't known for the past years. Just the same repeated ad-nauseum talking points.
- http://www.cbsnews.com/news/lois-lerner-attorney-negotiated-over-testifying-emails-show/
- "For her to take the risk inherent in waiver (of her Fifth Amendment privilege), she would need assurance she is resolving her issues with the Committee."
- http://www.salon.com/2014/03/05/darrell_issas_newest_irs_scandal_revelation_darrell_issa_is_bad_at_investigating_scandals/
But of course for Issa the 5th amendment only exists to protect him from prosecution from Arson charges of bomb throwing in committee. And meanwhile he wastes taxpayer money on a poor imitation of a witch hunt.
