If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
TO “KEEP THE PUBLIC IN THE DARK”
by Joseph DeMaio, ©2014
(Jun. 20, 2014) — Well, what do you know? Not only does the IRS now admit that it has failed to preserve evidence by “losing” certain selected e-mails from Lois Lerner to recipients’ computers at the White House, the Justice Department, the Federal Election Commission and select Democrats in the Congress, among other destinations, we now learn that the hard drives themselves have likely been “degaussed” and destroyed.
Say what? Do these federal revenuer idiots actually believe that any rational American – thus, by definition, excluding folks whose TV’s are welded to the MSNBC channel – will actually swallow that tripe? Really?
Quite apart from other federal statutes, rules and protocols requiring IRS employees to print and preserve hard-copy documents for potential Freedom of Information Act requests; quite apart from federal criminal statutes regarding the destruction of evidence and the obstruction of justice; quite apart from Lois Lerner’s invocation of a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; quite apart from inquiries of when Lerner’s computer hard drives were “degaussed” and destroyed following their purported “crash”…, inquiring minds need to know: what did those e-mails contain?
And, by the way, has anyone on Congressman Issa’s committee asked whether the recipients of those e-mails in the White House and the Department of Justice kept them? Are they preserved in an electronic “archive” folder somewhere on a White House or DOJ computer? Or have those computers also crashed?
If they have not yet crashed, will they have crashed by sundown today? And if they still exist, will “executive privilege” or “national security” be interposed to further obfuscate the truth? Wait… national security has already been discarded by the regime, so scratch that one as a possibility.
The opacity of this “most transparent administration in history” is beyond laughable, making the Keystone Kops look like Sherlock Holmes on steroids. The regime’s juvenile orchestration of the IRS’ “explanations” regarding the “regrettable loss” of Lerner’s e-mails is positively Nixonian, although describing the IRS actions as “juvenile” might tend to trivialize and denigrate adolescents everywhere.
In fact, this is the stuff from which B-minus movies are made. In China. There is, however, no evidence (yet) that the White House has signed a contract with the fellow who produced “that vile video” which the regime blamed for the Benghazi attack, the operative word being “yet.”
Indeed, the river of lies flowing from the regime and its operatives only fuels speculation as to what the Lerner e-mails contained. What could possibly have been so incendiary or incriminating as to require the e-mails to “disappear” and the hard drives to be “degaussed” and destroyed?
What if – hypothetically speaking, of course – the e-mails had included communications like this?:
Date: 04/01/11 2:25 PM
Subject: Tea Party Project
I am happy to comply with your request for otherwise confidential tax information on the individuals you named in your earlier e-mail to me today. I agree with you that these Tea Party radicals must be silenced. I also agree with your suggestion that the best way do that is to intimidate them with the power of the IRS.
I am concerned, however, that your request could place me personally in a difficult position should it ever come to light that confidential tax information was disclosed other than in compliance with already enacted laws, including section 6103 of the internal revenue code.
I would hate to have to invoke my Fifth Amendment rights in front of some congressional committee if I gave you the information which you have requested, in spite of your refusal to comply with the laws we enforce against everyone else. In fact, you have signed at least seven bills since assuming the presidency in 2009 making amendments to and re-enacting that very statute.
Specifically, your request for confidential information about the individuals named in your e-mail from earlier today would need to be accompanied by your personally-signed request giving the reason you needed the information. The reason you gave to me in your prior message that “because you are the president” is, respectfully, not enough.
The written document that is required under section 6103(g)(1) of the code mandates your personal signature. A “pen register” or rubber stamp signature won’t do. Failure to comply with that statute could expose both you and me to criminal liability, and I, for one, am not interested in that kind of exposure or scrutiny. I assume you would share that concern.
Moreover, a violation of that statute would seem to also implicate section 7213(a)(B)(2) of the code. That law states, in part, that an officer or employee of the United States who is convicted of any violation of subsection (a) relating to unauthorized disclosures of confidential information shall, in addition to any other punishment, be dismissed from office or discharged from employment.
You, of course, have the New York Times and Senator Reid to shield you from any impeachment or effort to remove you from office. On the other hand, I don’t. I am not interested in being either prosecuted for a felony or dismissed from employment. I could resign, retire or you could fire me, of course, but I do not want to be dismissed from employment only to face criminal prosecution at some future date when a new administration assumes power and a new Attorney General, one likely “less sympathetic” to our views, is appointed.
Finally, the closing line in your last e-mail to me from this morning to “do it or else” was not particularly welcomed or helpful. So I ask, respectfully, will you or will you not sign the document required under the law?
I look forward to your response.
What if…. just sayin’… what if? I mean, if former usurper-advisor David Axelrod can get away with slamming a GOP presidential candidate for leaving his state “with the hard drives from his computer” in order to “keep the public in the dark,” why should it be off-limits to raise the same arguments now? As noted last year, is anyone out there up for a FOIA request?
Wake up, America: the Barbarians of the Beltway are dismantling your nation. Do something about it. Your next meaningful opportunity comes on Tuesday, November 4, 2014. Oh, and this time…, pay more attention to what you are doing.