Paul L. Caron
Dean



Friday, January 9, 2015

The IRS Scandal, Day 610

IRS Logo 2National Review, Ask Lynch About the IRS Scandal:

Confirming a new attorney general is near the top of the new Senate's to-do list. The power not to confirm the president's nominees is near the top of the Republicans' new consignment of political clout. ... They should focus on the president’s AG nominee, Loretta Lynch, and they should refuse to confirm her until she commits to appointing a Special Prosecutor to investigate the IRS.

So long as the Justice Department is controlled by the Obama administration, it's going to obstruct any investigation that might embarrass the White House. ... [T]he IRS’s persecution of Americans of a particular political stripe is far and away the most important scandal of the bunch. It's the defining corruption of the era.

Requiring Lynch to promise a full investigation, headed by a special prosecutor, has ironclad precedent. In 1973, the Senate Judiciary Committee threatened to reject the appointment of Elliot Richardson unless he appointed Archibald Cox as a Watergate special prosecutor. Richardson was confirmed as attorney general on May 25, 1973; a week before that, on May 18, it was announced that "Attorney General-designate Elliot L. Richardson" had appointed Cox, and agreed, per the Judiciary Committee's demands, to give him "an unprecedented degree of independence from Federal interference and influence in investigating and prosecuting the case," according to a contemporaneous report in the Harvard Crimson. (Richardson was a Harvard alumnus.)

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2015/01/the-irs-scandal-4.html

IRS News, IRS Scandal, Tax | Permalink

Comments

Silly idea. There is literally no appointment that LLynch could make that would satisfy the right wing of the GOP. Any such appointment would simply generate another "scandal." Oh, wait a minute! That's the whole idea, isn't it?

Posted by: Publius Novus | Jan 9, 2015 6:14:13 AM

'Publius' doesn't seem to have thought the issue through, or compared today's issues with the very similar issues of the past. I feel pretty confidant that a man like Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, or any level headed man of similar stature would be acceptable. Our problem is that the office of attorney general has always been very political by its nature, perhaps the most political. It is not an elected office. He serves at the pleasure of his president, and is active at the line of tension between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

Posted by: Oliver Shank | Jan 9, 2015 12:03:09 PM

Sad to see that while Democrats are rioting in the streets over abuse of power that they can't spare a square to deal with their own abuses of power. Guess Democrats are just full of it, they could not have chosen a better mascot...

Posted by: wodun | Jan 9, 2015 1:11:53 PM

Mr. Shank: Thank you for the civics lesson. I didn't know any of that. Not. Russ Feingold would not be acceptable to the right wing. You do not understand the dynamic here and you are, unfortunately, allowing your judgment to be colored by logic.

Mr woodun: History lesson. Neither the Dems nor the Repubs chose their mascots. Thomas Nast, a political cartoonist of the 19th Century, endowed both parties. Facts, Mr. woodon, facts.

Posted by: Publius Novus | Jan 9, 2015 5:12:17 PM