A Smoking Gun

 

IRS ScandalIt has been obvious to anyone who has paid attention that the Obama administration made use of the Internal Revenue Service to confine and paralyze the Tea Party movement by denying many of the organizations that grew up after 2009 the tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status they sought or by delaying until after the 2010, the 2012, and, in some cases, the 2014 elections a decision on their applications. Back in May 2013, the Inspector General for the Department of the Treasury issued a report, revealing that, starting in 2010, the IRS had singled out groups with words such as “patriot” and “Tea Party” in their titles for intensive scrutiny and that at that time they “began using inappropriate criteria to identify organizations applying for tax-exempt status (e.g., lists of past and future donors).”

With Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, and their minions in control of the Department of Justice, there was never any chance that there would be a full-scale investigation of these shenanigans and the lodging of criminal charges, and John Koskinen, who took over the agency at the end of 2013, has dragged his feet at every turn, vociferously denying that anything partisan in nature was done.

Judicial Watch, which has doggedly pursued this question through a Freedom of Information lawsuit first brought in October 2013, just discovered a smoking gun — notes taken at an interoffice meeting held in Washington DC, ca. August 2011 — where then IRS Director of the Office of Rulings and Agreements Holly Paz reported on what was going on:

Holly – Cinci paralyzed by letting any issue go unaddressed. They think they know what the org[anization] is really doing, rather than looking at actual activities. Q[uestion]’s were not activity based, but guilt by association questions – like q[uestion]’s asking party affiliations …

They see approval of something that will turn out to be very bad org[anization] – terrified of that – that’s why they personally will need to have power to say yes. Agents felt if they could ask enough questions, they will find a problem. Agents were jumping to negative conclusions and assumptions – particularly where relationship with political groups or affiliations.

In short, what was going on was systematic viewpoint-discrimination, and everyone knew it well before the 2012 election. As long as the fix was in and the Department of Justice was, in effect, functioning as a Department of Obstruction of Justice, nothing much could be done. Now, however, there should be a full-scale investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation aimed at getting to the bottom of this, and, when it is all over, there should be heads on pikes.

Perhaps, however, before he departs, Barack Obama will throw a monkey wrench into the works by issuing a pardon for Lois Lerner and John Koskinen. That would be a fitting capstone for his years in office.

Published in Politics
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 37 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Well said a usual.

    It is amazing to me how people on the Left think things OK.

    • #1
  2. Seawriter Contributor
    Seawriter
    @Seawriter

    Paul A. Rahe: Perhaps, however, before he departs, Barack Obama will throw a monkey wrench into the works by issuing a pardon for Lois Lerner and John Koskinen.

    If he does that they can be impeached. Doing that would deny them both Federal pension and any opportunity to work for the Federal government again if convicted. If they are not convicted (takes a 2-3rds vote of the Senate, the refusal of Democrats to vote for conviction can be used an election issue in 2018. The Democrats will be defending 25 seats in the Senate that year. Senator So-and-So let an IRS thug skate ought to be a powerful club.

    Seawriter

    • #2
  3. Kate Braestrup Member
    Kate Braestrup
    @GrannyDude

    Paul A. Rahe: Now, however, there should be a full-scale investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation aimed at getting to the bottom of this, and, when it is all over, there should be heads on pikes.

    Agree.

    • #3
  4. Brian Clendinen Member
    Brian Clendinen
    @BrianClendinen

    This is why the DOJ needs to be independent like it is at the state level in almost every single state in the union. Also when the DOJ breaks the law who has the power to go after them, really no one. That is a huge break down and a critical failer point in the checks and balance of our goverment.

    • #4
  5. EDISONPARKS Member
    EDISONPARKS
    @user_54742

    The IRS targeting of Conservative 501(c)(4) applicants scandal and the fact that there has been exactly zero repercussions to to anybody is the most infuriating aspect of Obama’s two terms.   What ever happened to the old (D) Machine fall guy being sent out to fall on his sword to try placate the press and the masses?……Lois Lerner’s attorney must have advised Lerner to threaten to name names.

    This is the classic case of the MSM feigning interest and eventually allowing an obvious disgusting scandal to simply die of lack of interest (…and of the MSM subliminally acceding to the Obama IRS’s effort to stifle the efforts of Obama’s political opposition.)

    I agree adamantly with Professor Rahe, the IRS scandal needs to be honestly investigated and resolved, and those involved held accountable.

    • #5
  6. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Who we going to get to investigate the FBI?  Seems to me they need a few heads mounted on the city wall also.

    • #6
  7. Seawriter Contributor
    Seawriter
    @Seawriter

    Fake John/Jane Galt: Who we going to get to investigate the FBI? Seems to me they need a few heads mounted on the city wall also.

    I think there needs to be some legislation allowing states attorney generals to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed by federal law-enforcement authorities. Perhaps this could be limited to crimes committed against citizens of the state of the prosecuting AG. (Since True the Vote was based in Texas . . . ) The cases would still be held in Federal Court, with the state AG (or designate) substituting for the Federal prosecutor.

    It would serve as a check against a corrupt executive branch.

    Seawriter

    • #7
  8. Brian McMenomy Inactive
    Brian McMenomy
    @BrianMcMenomy

    Seawriter:

    Fake John/Jane Galt: Who we going to get to investigate the FBI? Seems to me they need a few heads mounted on the city wall also.

    I think there needs to be some legislation allowing states attorney generals to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed by federal law-enforcement authorities. Perhaps this could be limited to crimes committed against citizens of the state of the prosecuting AG. (Since True the Vote was based in Texas . . . ) The cases would still be held in Federal Court, with the state AG (or designate) substituting for the Federal prosecutor.

    It would serve as a check against a corrupt executive branch.

    Seawriter

    I like this better than the whole independent prosecutor dance; a nod to federalism as well.

    • #8
  9. Leigh Inactive
    Leigh
    @Leigh

    Seawriter:

    Fake John/Jane Galt: Who we going to get to investigate the FBI? Seems to me they need a few heads mounted on the city wall also.

    I think there needs to be some legislation allowing states attorney generals to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed by federal law-enforcement authorities. Perhaps this could be limited to crimes committed against citizens of the state of the prosecuting AG. (Since True the Vote was based in Texas . . . ) The cases would still be held in Federal Court, with the state AG (or designate) substituting for the Federal prosecutor.

    It would serve as a check against a corrupt executive branch.

    Seawriter

    Interesting idea. I’d have to think more about it before endorsing it, but my initial reaction is that it’s a great idea.

    Try pitching it to your congresspersons and to the Republican Governors’  Association. I’m not kidding about the latter. Scott Walker’s the chair this year, he clearly wants to go somewhere on federalism, and he has allies in high places at the moment…

    • #9
  10. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Seawriter:

    Paul A. Rahe: Perhaps, however, before he departs, Barack Obama will throw a monkey wrench into the works by issuing a pardon for Lois Lerner and John Koskinen.

    If he does that they can be impeached. Doing that would deny them both Federal pension and any opportunity to work for the Federal government again if convicted. If they are not convicted (takes a 2-3rds vote of the Senate, the refusal of Democrats to vote for conviction can be used an election issue in 2018. The Democrats will be defending 25 seats in the Senate that year. Senator So-and-So let an IRS thug skate ought to be a powerful club.

    Seawriter

    It would be OK, but only if the emphasis is on reform more than punishment.  If we give those two their just desserts but don’t do anything to fix the system, it will be seen as vengeance rather than doing something in the public interest. The media will of course try to play up the vengeance angle, regardless.  But we shouldn’t let that be the reality.

    • #10
  11. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Seawriter:

    Fake John/Jane Galt: Who we going to get to investigate the FBI? Seems to me they need a few heads mounted on the city wall also.

    I think there needs to be some legislation allowing states attorney generals to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed by federal law-enforcement authorities. Perhaps this could be limited to crimes committed against citizens of the state of the prosecuting AG. (Since True the Vote was based in Texas . . . ) The cases would still be held in Federal Court, with the state AG (or designate) substituting for the Federal prosecutor.

    It would serve as a check against a corrupt executive branch.

    Seawriter

    Interesting idea.  Sounds good at first, anyway.

    • #11
  12. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Seawriter:

    Paul A. Rahe: Perhaps, however, before he departs, Barack Obama will throw a monkey wrench into the works by issuing a pardon for Lois Lerner and John Koskinen.

    If he does that they can be impeached. Doing that would deny them both Federal pension and any opportunity to work for the Federal government again if convicted. If they are not convicted (takes a 2-3rds vote of the Senate, the refusal of Democrats to vote for conviction can be used an election issue in 2018. The Democrats will be defending 25 seats in the Senate that year. Senator So-and-So let an IRS thug skate ought to be a powerful club.

    Seawriter

    That is what has been so frustrating about Congress for a while now. “We can’t do that —we’ll only lose” misses the point of pinning your opponents’ most unpopular positions to their lapels when they go out and face the electorate. Don’t think of it as failing; think of it as stockpiling ammunition.

    • #12
  13. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat
    @FrontSeatCat

    I’m looking forward to the end of the Obama administration (how many days left?). They tried to control legitimate start-ups, as you so well highlighted, as well as demonize Christian based organizations through the IRS and Obamacare, like Catholic hospital and clinic policies, as well as monopolizing the mainstream media.  A new day has come, it won’t be government business as usual, and I look forward to it.

    • #13
  14. Seawriter Contributor
    Seawriter
    @Seawriter

    The Reticulator: It would be OK, but only if the emphasis is on reform more than punishment. If we give those two their just desserts but don’t do anything to fix the system, it will be seen as vengeance rather than doing something in the public interest. The media will of course try to play up the vengeance angle, regardless. But we shouldn’t let that be the reality.

    Giving them their just desserts would go part of the way towards fixing the system. Civil Servants believe they are unaccountable and immune to the consequences of their actions, even those most egregiously illegal. IRS employees would be a lot less willing to plays these types of games if they knew their livelihood and pension could be forfeit, even if they escape jail time. I am only advocating impeachment as a substitute for criminal prosecution if Obama pardons them. The impeachment process is independent of the judiciary system. (Separation of powers)

    Seawriter

    • #14
  15. Mike-K Member
    Mike-K
    @

    Seawriter:If they are not convicted (takes a 2-3rds vote of the Senate, the refusal of Democrats to vote for conviction can be used an election issue in 2018. The Democrats will be defending 25 seats in the Senate that year. Senator So-and-So let an IRS thug skate ought to be a powerful club.

     

    Yes. It is time to abandon the Marquis of Queensbury rules.

    • #15
  16. Mike-K Member
    Mike-K
    @

    Fake John/Jane Galt: Who we going to get to investigate the FBI?

    Like so much in the military, the lower orders are not corrupted. My daughter is an FBI agent and usually a lefty politically. When I asked her about the election in September, she told me “I will not vote for Hillary.” I think there are others.

    • #16
  17. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Seawriter:Giving them their just desserts would go part of the way towards fixing the system. Civil Servants believe they are unaccountable and immune to the consequences of their actions, even those most egregiously illegal. IRS employees would be a lot less willing to plays these types of games if they knew their livelihood and pension could be forfeit, even if they escape jail time. I am only advocating impeachment as a substitute for criminal prosecution if Obama pardons them. The impeachment process is independent of the judiciary system. (Separation of powers)

    Seawriter

    There is no reason the IRS should be entrusted with the job of pre-approving non-profit status in the first place. Taking that job away from them and either eliminating it or giving it to another agency would help. Instituting a system by which decisions or non-decisions can be appealed to another agency would help. If we have to depend on eventual punishment of the most egregious abusers — those who come to the attention of the public — we haven’t done much.  And then we have also failed to take advantage of an opportunity for real reform that would reverberate throughout government. And we would have failed to take advantage of a teachable moment for our entire citizenry.

    • #17
  18. Paul A. Rahe Contributor
    Paul A. Rahe
    @PaulARahe

    Seawriter:

    Fake John/Jane Galt: Who we going to get to investigate the FBI? Seems to me they need a few heads mounted on the city wall also.

    I think there needs to be some legislation allowing states attorney generals to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed by federal law-enforcement authorities. Perhaps this could be limited to crimes committed against citizens of the state of the prosecuting AG. (Since True the Vote was based in Texas . . . ) The cases would still be held in Federal Court, with the state AG (or designate) substituting for the Federal prosecutor.

    It would serve as a check against a corrupt executive branch.

    Seawriter

    Not a bad idea.

    • #18
  19. Ribaldish Inactive
    Ribaldish
    @Ribaldish

    Percival:That is what has been so frustrating about Congress for a while now. “We can’t do that —we’ll only lose” misses the point of pinning your opponents’ most unpopular positions to their lapels when they go out and face the electorate. Don’t think of it as failing; think of it as stockpiling ammunition.

    The thing is, though, that conservatives are prone to wildly overestimating how much the public actually cares about this stuff. Democrats are proven masters at dragging out investigations into scandals until they can declare them old news, and Republicans have yet to find a good way of keeping voters engaged and focused on the wrongdoing. As a result they end up looking like weird obsessives rather than people seeking justice and good government.

    That’s not to say this stuff isn’t an outrage — of course it is. But I just don’t think forcing Democratic politicians to stand up and defend Joel Koskinen moves a lot of votes. If you pulled 100 random people off the street I’d be shocked if as many as 2 of them even knew who Joel Koskinen is.

     

    • #19
  20. EDISONPARKS Member
    EDISONPARKS
    @user_54742

    Ribaldish:

    Percival:That is what has been so frustrating about Congress for a while now. “We can’t do that —we’ll only lose” misses the point of pinning your opponents’ most unpopular positions to their lapels when they go out and face the electorate. Don’t think of it as failing; think of it as stockpiling ammunition.

    The thing is, though, that conservatives are prone to wildly overestimating how much the public actually cares about this stuff. Democrats are proven masters at dragging out investigations into scandals until they can declare them old news, and Republicans have yet to find a good way of keeping voters engaged and focused on the wrongdoing. As a result they end up looking like weird obsessives rather than people seeking justice and good government.

    That’s not to say this stuff isn’t an outrage — of course it is. But I just don’t think forcing Democratic politicians to stand up and defend Joel Koskinen moves a lot of votes. If you pulled 100 random people off the street I’d be shocked if as many as 2 of them even knew who Joel Koskinen is.

    John Koskinen does not matter.   His role was to slow walk/stonewall any Congressional investigations, and perform his intolerable Ahrsehat IRS bureaucrat double speak routine for any Congressional testimony.

    Quietly and without Congressional fan fare the DOJ/FBI needs to sit down Lois Lerner and others from the Cincinnati IRS office and put the screws to them with the real threat of prison time and let them start to roll on their Washington IRS bosses.  Somebody other than Lois Lerner ordered the Conservative 501(c)(4) applicants not be approved and to mess with the applicants with absurd unconstitutional interrogatories.   Who ever is responsible for the IRS scandal should do prison time.

    • #20
  21. Leigh Inactive
    Leigh
    @Leigh

    Ribaldish: That’s not to say this stuff isn’t an outrage — of course it is. But I just don’t think forcing Democratic politicians to stand up and defend Joel Koskinen moves a lot of votes. If you pulled 100 random people off the street I’d be shocked if as many as 2 of them even knew who Joel Koskinen is.

    Agreed, but sometimes when Republicans handle this effectively they can make a point. You’re not going to spark a massive popular upswell over it, but you can make a difference at the margins that can sometimes be decisive, and you may be able to deter the next Koskinen.

    This probably deserves a post of its own, but remember Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Oregon? The secretary of state responsible for that just lost — evidently the first time Oregon has elected a Republican to statewide office in more than ten years. I didn’t follow the race at all and have no idea what all was involved, but that seems like a very big deal. It’s not exactly the same kind of issue, but it’s related, and probably indicates that this kind of thing can have some political salience.

    • #21
  22. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Keep in mind that putting heads on pikes will fix things only so long as Republicans control the Executive and Legislative branches, if that.

    Karl Rove and those of his ilk were long on ways of making political hay out of scandals, but short on ways of protecting people from governmental abuse. We should reject that mentality.

    It would be a travesty of justice if there were no heads on spikes, but if we really plan to do anything about the administrative over-reach that we complain of we will have to make other institutional changes that will be difficult to overturn the next time a Democrat sits in the White House.

    Maybe there can be some sort of public tradeoff over how many heads need to go on the city wall. In return for cooperation on the institutional changes, maybe we won’t insist that everyone from the top dog to the lowest person who failed to say, “But that’s wrong! That’s illegal! We can’t do that!” will need to lose his head.

    • #22
  23. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Ribaldish:

    Percival:That is what has been so frustrating about Congress for a while now. “We can’t do that —we’ll only lose” misses the point of pinning your opponents’ most unpopular positions to their lapels when they go out and face the electorate. Don’t think of it as failing; think of it as stockpiling ammunition.

    The thing is, though, that conservatives are prone to wildly overestimating how much the public actually cares about this stuff. Democrats are proven masters at dragging out investigations into scandals until they can declare them old news, and Republicans have yet to find a good way of keeping voters engaged and focused on the wrongdoing. As a result they end up looking like weird obsessives rather than people seeking justice and good government.

    That’s not to say this stuff isn’t an outrage — of course it is. But I just don’t think forcing Democratic politicians to stand up and defend Joel Koskinen moves a lot of votes. If you pulled 100 random people off the street I’d be shocked if as many as 2 of them even knew who Joel Koskinen is.

    If the Republicans did a better job of communicating, maybe more people would care. That is a lot of work. It’s part of the job that they are supposed to be doing, though.

    • #23
  24. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Leigh:

    Ribaldish: That’s not to say this stuff isn’t an outrage — of course it is. But I just don’t think forcing Democratic politicians to stand up and defend Joel Koskinen moves a lot of votes. If you pulled 100 random people off the street I’d be shocked if as many as 2 of them even knew who Joel Koskinen is.

    Agreed, but sometimes when Republicans handle this effectively they can make a point. You’re not going to spark a massive popular upswell over it, but you can make a difference at the margins that can sometimes be decisive, and you may be able to deter the next Koskinen.

    This probably deserves a post of its own, but remember Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Oregon? The secretary of state responsible for that just lost — evidently the first time Oregon has elected a Republican to statewide office in more than ten years. I didn’t follow the race at all and have no idea what all was involved, but that seems like a very big deal. It’s not exactly the same kind of issue, but it’s related, and probably indicates that this kind of thing can have some political salience.

    Yeah, and the family still lost its bakery. Nothing was done to fix that.  Good news for Republican officeholders, no good news for the people. Result, would-be private business owners will stay low cuz someday Democrats will be back.

    • #24
  25. Leigh Inactive
    Leigh
    @Leigh

    The Reticulator: Yeah, and the family still lost its bakery. Nothing was done to fix that. Good news for Republican officeholders, no good news for the people. Result, would-be private business owners will stay low cuz someday Democrats will be back.

    The election result was less than two weeks ago.  It doesn’t undo the damage done to that family. It protects the next one, a little longer, in that state and elsewhere. Because if you can lose in Oregon over it, clearly the politics aren’t so clear-cut as the media told us when they had it out in Indiana.

    Absolutely agree with your larger point. As I think I’ve said elsewhere, Republicans in power right now should have precisely two goals: to protect the country from all enemies foreign and domestic, and to do everything in their power to protect American liberty from the next Democratic administration.

    And I’m fine with trade-offs for systematic change as you suggest. But it does matter what behavior voters reward. I’m glad Oregon did not reward his, and it seems like something conservatives should know and make a point of. I’d like my Democratic senator (up for a rough re-election in two years) to ponder that a little. That can help grease the wheels of some of that systematic change, too.

    • #25
  26. Ribaldish Inactive
    Ribaldish
    @Ribaldish

    Percival: If the Republicans did a better job of communicating, maybe more people would care. That is a lot of work. It’s part of the job that they are supposed to be doing, though.

     

    I like to think I’m a pretty good communicator. And yet every time I’ve tried to explain the IRS scandal to somebody who’s not already exercised about it, it takes less than a minute for their eyes to glaze over.

    If you’ve got some ideas about what this “better job of communicating” might look like in actual practice, I’d love to hear them.

    • #26
  27. Brad Crawford Inactive
    Brad Crawford
    @BradCrawford

    “Perhaps, however, before he departs, Barack Obama will throw a monkey wrench into the works by issuing a pardon for Lois Lerner and John Koskinen.”

    We can only pray for such good luck. What has always mattered most for the health of our democracy is for the sun to shine in so the public may actually know what happened. If these two were given blanket pardons for anything related to the IRS “incident,” taking the 5th later would smell so fishy that public support for a Justice Dept grant of immunity to compel testimony, or jail time for contempt, would be high enough to give political cover to the new Trump Admin to grant it.

    Immunity should further be granted to whoever else cannot otherwise be made to testify – *candidly*. The moment you do the sensible, democracy-friendly thing, which is to place getting the truth out to the public before all else, what the govt should do becomes simple.

    This same line of reasoning applies to the email thing, the Iran deal, the Clinton Foundation and all govt wrongdoing in general: if people can’t be compelled to speak candidly, under oath, then immunize them and grill them mercilessly, knowing perjury equals jail time.

    Sunlight creates wiser electorates; successful secrecy creates the opposite. Withholding immunity just blocks the sunlight, kills the investigations and allows the coverups to succeed.

    Don’t kill the good for the perfect – just do what it takes to make all concerned answer under oath.

    • #27
  28. TooShy Coolidge
    TooShy
    @TooShy

    Seawriter:

     

    I think there needs to be some legislation allowing states attorney generals to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed by federal law-enforcement authorities. Perhaps this could be limited to crimes committed against citizens of the state of the prosecuting AG. (Since True the Vote was based in Texas . . . ) The cases would still be held in Federal Court, with the state AG (or designate) substituting for the Federal prosecutor.

    It would serve as a check against a corrupt executive branch.

    Seawriter

    I can see the attraction of this proposal, but it worries me.

    But then, I worry a lot. About everything.

    In this case, I worry about the unintended consequences. It is adding in a new power, to balance the power of the central government agency. But could this new power be abused? If so, how? What would, say someone like Kamala Harris do with it?

    So tentatively in favour, but still worried.

     

    • #28
  29. Doug Watt Moderator
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    Who is minding the minders? We have a system of political appointees that is based upon to the victors go the spoils. Political appointees are rewarded with law enforcement positions at the Federal level of government. They view laws as malleable. They will enforce the laws that agree with the President’s political views and ignore those laws that do not agree with a President’s political views. In some cases they will break laws, or use their power to bludgeon the opponents of a President.

    As egregious as the IRS actions are I would suggest that Fast and Furious was the more serious matter. Selling firearms to drug cartels not only violated Federal law it violated Mexico’s sovereignty. The Federal government was arming organized criminals in Mexico. Criminals that were and still are engaged in a revolt against an elected government. I find it hard to believe that we cannot find one BATF agent that spoke out against this action. I do know that we need to find out how this came about and punish those responsible for this plan. 2,000 plus firearms crossed the border from Tucson into Mexico courtesy of the BATF. There are many illegal border crossings, but this one was pretty spectacular.

    • #29
  30. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    This is a serious proposal.    We don’t really want to use special prosecutors ever again, there’s a totalitarian smell to them, nor do we want to punish political opponents unless their crimes are completely outrageous, perhaps like the Clinton Foundation and the pay to play, so that we shut down that avenue for personal enrichment.  Senior bureaucrats however need to know that when they are asked to violate the law, the constitution and the spirit of their appointments and oaths, they will eventually be prosecuted.  Their choices are to resign or eventually get caught.  Now that we have privatized retirement, there is no excuse for not resigning when faced with such choices.  Once they begin to show backbone, they wont have to because politicians are fundamentally cowards.   (Hillary was an appointed Senior official not a political opponent at the time.) Of course the cause of the problem in the first place is the amount of power and control we’ve given to the Federal government.  The first job is to cut that back drastically.  In the case of the IRS, that means a radically simplified tax code.  Abusive functionaries would be felicitous collateral damage.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.