Court Lets Judicial Watch Seek Unsealing of IRS Officials Lerner, Paz Depositions
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A court has allowed Judicial Watch to file an amicus brief requesting that the depositions of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) officials — Lois Lerner and Holly Paz — be unsealed, the nonprofit government watchdog organization revealed Wednesday.
“Judicial Watch played a central role in uncovering the IRS scandals, in which Lerner and Paz were primary actors,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement Wednesday.
Fitton added: “Judicial Watch uncovered 41,100 pages of records. Our work led to the discovery of IRS collusion with the [special counsel Robert] Mueller-run FBI to plan prosecutions of the very groups the Obama IRS was persecuting.
“Judicial Watch also uncovered the revelation that thousands of Ms. Lerner’s emails were destroyed by the IRS while Judicial Watch’s lawsuits and other investigations were pending.”
Lerner served as director of the IRS Exempt Organizations Unit, and Paz served as Lerner’s deputy. Lerner became the face of the 2013 IRS targeting scandal in which the federal tax agency was exposed as having illegally harassed conservative, Tea Party, and evangelical applicants for tax-exempt status during the 2010 and 2012 campaigns.
Conservative organizations’ applications for tax-exempt status were disproportionately subjected to intense scrutiny and slow-walking from 2009 to 2012. Groups affiliated with the Tea Party movement particularly found their applications targeted.
The scandal led to an FBI criminal investigation and spurred the affected conservative groups to file a class-action lawsuit. Both Lerner and Paz gave taped depositions in court to explain their version of the targeting scandal, but their lawyers argued for the depositions to remain sealed. They cited “death threats and harassment” as a reason for keeping the deposition from the public.
IRS officials finally admitted in court in October 2017 that it inappropriately targeted Tea Party groups.
“The IRS admits that its treatment of Plaintiffs during the tax-exempt determinations process, including screening their applications based on their names or policy positions, subjecting those applications to heightened scrutiny and inordinate delays, and demanding of some Plaintiffs’ information that TIGTA (Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration) determined was unnecessary to the agency’s determination of their tax-exempt status, was wrong,” the IRS’ consent order read.
“For such treatment, the IRS expresses its sincere apology,” IRS officials added.
The court order allowed Judicial Watch to seek the unsealing of Lerner and Paz’s deposition and set a hearing for Thursday in which the two women may respond.
The order read, “To the extent Defendants Lois Lerner and Holly Paz intend to respond to Judicial Watch’s amicus curiae brief beyond what has already been provided to the Court, Defendants Lois Lerner and Holly Paz will be permitted to make that presentation at the hearing on this matter.”
The IRS targeting may have cost 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney more than enough votes to defeat President Barack Obama’s bid for a second term, according to a statistical analysis by the American Enterprise Institute’s Stan Veuger .
By | Wednesday, August 8, 2018
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
"Conservative organizations’ applications for tax-exempt status were disproportionately subjected to intense scrutiny and slow-walking from 2009 to 2012. Groups affiliated with the Tea Party movement particularly found their applications targeted."
We won't get justice as the Tea Party was neutralized just before the 2012 election, but at long last we will get some transparency.
Both conservative "Tea party" groups and liberal progressive groups were targeted, the only reason there were "disproportionately" more "Tea Party" names used was because there were disproportionately more conservative Tea Party rule breakers.
Besides, not a single one of them was actually denied tax exempt status. On top of that, there is ZERO evidence of any direction from the administration at the time and Lois Lerner was a Republican appointed by the prior Republican administration.
This is beyond a nothing burger but silly half wits and bitter whiny wannabe conservative victims can't let it go because they desperately need a distraction from the inept man baby they elected President.
One line gives the whole story a black eye.
You claim not one conservative group was denied. If that is true then there was absolutely no need EVER for them to come under ANY extra scrutiny, as no one had abused the system, which means they were DELIBERATELY targeted, not for some groups abusing the system, but strictly on their name and politics, according to your very own post.
What you fail to point out is how many conservative groups were deliberately slow-walked, taking an inordinate amount of time for approval, while many liberal groups were rubber-stamped much faster.
Again from the article above:
"IRS officials finally admitted in court in October 2017 that it inappropriately targeted Tea Party groups.
“The IRS admits that its treatment of Plaintiffs during the tax-exempt determinations process, including screening their applications based on their names or policy positions, subjecting those applications to heightened scrutiny and inordinate delays, and demanding of some Plaintiffs’ information that TIGTA (Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration) determined was unnecessary to the agency’s determination of their tax-exempt status, was wrong,” the IRS’ consent order read.
“For such treatment, the IRS expresses its sincere apology,” IRS officials added.
The IRS also paid millions to tea party groups for their politically motivated targeting.
Point well taken.
Let's see who is able to respond?
Your entire comment is stupid and lacks any proof such as links to validate what you have posted.
Not exactly.
First of all this has dragged out for 5 years, ending on Oct 26,2017, and no doubt would probably had a different outcome if Jeff Sessions weren't running the DOJ at that time.
DOJ settled one lawsuit for an undisclosed million dollar figure, presumably to be divided between counsel and the 428 plaintiffs.
The second lawsuit was settled without monetary compensation but yet another apology from the IRS for it's heavy handedness in the past.
Big win for the lawyers, nice work if you can get it.
"The list, first distributed in August 2010, suggested intensive scrutiny of applicants with names related to a number of political causes, including names related to the Tea Party movement and other conservative causes. Eventually, IRS employees in Ohio, California, and Washington, D.C. applied closer scrutiny to applications from organizations that referenced words such as "Tea Party", "Patriots", or "9/12 Project", "progressive," "occupy," "Israel," "open source software," "medical marijuana" and "occupied territory advocacy" in the case file."
" For the 296 total political campaign intervention applications [reviewed in the audit] as of December 17, 2012, 108 had been approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicant, none had been denied "
"One line gives the whole story a black eye. You claim not one conservative group was denied. If that is true then there was absolutely no need EVER for them to come under ANY extra scrutiny"
1. Most of the groups flagged by the IRS for extra scrutiny didn't actually have to apply for tax-exempt status.
Of the nearly 300 groups singled out for extra scrutiny, just 89 actually had to apply.
2. Even if the right criteria had been used, 80 percent of the targeted groups would have warranted extra scrutiny.
Tea Party and patriot groups were flagged for extra scrutiny by IRS agents simply because of the names of their groups, which was clearly inappropriate.
But what if the IRS had used the correct criteria? That is, flagging groups that participated in a lot of political activity or got involved in campaigns.
The inspector general says 96 of the flagged groups had Tea Party and related terms in their names. Eighteen percent of those groups showed no signs of political activity and thus shouldn't have gotten any scrutiny. But that also means means a full 82 percent of them displayed enough political activity to warrant additional screening by IRS agents.
3. Those intrusive questions that drew widespread criticism? Some of them are actually on the IRS application form.
4. Nonconservative groups got extra scrutiny, too. A lot of them.
According to an analysis by the publication Tax Analysts, 46 of the approved groups on the list had Tea Party or patriot in their names, 76 were otherwise conservative-leaning groups and 48 were non-conservative or progressive.
It's like you guys don't even read the facts but just choose to listen to flawed pointless conservative pundits rave on and on about something they know almost nothing about. This feels like shooting fish in a barrel, but the fish aren't smart enough to even know they've been shot.
So, what are ya gonna do when they come out with "There is no there, there." In this case.
Hum, you mean you didn't live through this? You didn't read the article?
I do hate repeating the obvious, but here I go again, from this very article:
"Lerner served as director of the IRS Exempt Organizations Unit, and Paz served as Lerner’s deputy. Lerner became the face of the 2013 IRS targeting scandal in which the federal tax agency was exposed as having illegally harassed conservative, Tea Party, and evangelical applicants for tax-exempt status during the 2010 and 2012 campaigns."
The fact that Obama's DOJ did nothing about it dosen't take away from their GUILT.
I think I do remember something about this, towards the end of it when the DOJ's report came out saying that it wasn't only conservative non-profits but, also liberal non-profits that were "targeted" by the IRS.
You remember that it was Obama's DOJ that did the investigating? Very good!
You do know that it's Trumps DOJ that is investigating the Russia probe don't you? Should the folks on the left consider that probe suspect because Trumps DOJ is investigating Trump? I know that you folks on the Right are saying it's suspect because of that but, your reasons are different than what the Lefts would be I think.
No, you have an INDEPENDENT SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION
Who appointed Mueller and, Rosenstein and, Sessions? This is the chain of command in this investigation, let me help you out here. Mueller was appointed by Rosenstein who was appointed by Session who was nominated to head the DOJ by Donald J. Trump.
And Robert Mueller is totally independent from the DOJ or the President.
Excuse me? His boss is Rosenstein who is the Deputy Attorney General for the United States and, as such he is one step down from Sessions who is the head of the DOJ so, that makes Rosenstein a member of the DOJ and, it makes Mueller a member of the DOJ.
Golly gee, would you look at that.
It seems the righties are feigning ignorance to get us to feed them public info they then actively ignore...
Excuse me! The Deputy AG gave Robert Mueller very wide latitude. Mueller can look anywhere and prosecute any non related crimes he finds along the way. The investigation continues for as long as Mueller wants and he has unlimited resources.
I am sure you wouldn't claim that Bill Clinton's DOJ controlled Star's investigation, would you?
No, especially considering that he wasn't appointed by the DOJ,
Oh wow, Then he continued on for Fiske, so was Fiske in the bag for Clinton?
ummm, would this then mean that Trump can fire Mueller with no repercussions? After all, if everybody in that line reports up to Trump then Trump should be able to fire any of them at any time. /s
No, that was tried by Nixon with disastrous results for him, trump is part of the investigation, if he fires Mueller it could be looked at by who ever takes over as Obstruction of Justice, just like it was in Nixon's case.
The non profit 'Judicial Watch' should be audited and investigated for foreign contributors.
Nice deflection!!!!
I will stand by what I said.
Stand by your deflection?
That's funny!
Oh definitely, right after we do the same for the "Anti-American Civil Liberties Union"
Fine. Audit them both. No problem. Except Judicial Watch has...………….well...….secret donors.
Let me finish that...Except Judicial Watch has been successful in getting some transparency for the American people. They are taking advantage of the Freedom of Information Act. That's what they do!
It seems you don't like it
That's odd. Valerie Jarrett clearly stated that Obama didn't have any scandals during their ... I mean his ... presidency.
And her minions have repeated it over & over, right here on NT
The way 'y'all live in the past is a curious thing.
" Progress , far from consisting in change , depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
A very nice quote, one I've used many times myself, however, there is another quote,
How many investigations do you want to have into this IRS scandal? We had eight investigations into Benghazi and, found nothing, wasting tax payer dollars, we investigated Hillary's emails until they were so dogeared that we couldn't tell how old they were. So, what are we going to do here, investigate this until some little crumb is found, like maybe getting a blow job, when that isn't what the investigation isn't even about? Any little thing just so long as you get your pound of flesh on a "Democrat" right? Damn, when are ya'all going to get over Nixon having to resign because he was a POS?
I am well aware of this quote, but you might want to research who the quotation's originators were. Here's a hint: Bill W. and Dr. Bob in the 1930s.
NA was formed in 1953 by Jimmy Kinnon.
The two organizations are similar but different, and that's why some people confuse them. Some folks also attribute the quote to Albert Einstein even though there's no evidence that he was the first to use it.
Re: the rest of your comment - as many investigations as are necessary so that the full truth is known and the guilty are held accountable.
And, who decides what the truth is in this case? The FBI or, the Republicans?
I found this and, that is why I listed NA as the author,
Just saying.
We, the People. And, I'll leave it to you to figure out exactly what I mean.
"We the People" got their law degree where? How long has "We the people" been practicing law and, in what state have they practiced that law? When "We the People" forget the rule of law and, ignore the Constitution they become We the Mob.
You clearly did not understand my comment. No problem.
I was in High School in 1981, have no clue whose saying it is, but grew up hearing it from my grandmother so I am saying that Gertrude Agnes Foust said it first sometime in the early 70's.. : )
LOL
Are you Valerie Jarrett?
Well, since I am a "Mr." and she is a "Mrs.", my assumption here is that you have asked a rhetorical question that has no meaning at all, other than to make an attempt to piss me off. You failed.
Well, that is the narrative she created. Something she likes to do
So, the way I read it, the court is allowing Judicial Watch to file a brief, that's it. An amicus brief, a friend of the court brief holds no legal standing, it's not a motion that a court must act upon. In essence it's a term paper that's filled with one-sided arguments meant to put a slanted opinion into a judge's ear. Many organizations do the same all the time. You know, like Family Research Council did to the Supreme Court during Obergefell v. Hodges. And we know how that ended.
And after the Trump administration decided in September of last year to decline to file charges or pursue this matter any further.
Of course, any validity to the article, and the cause, is completely undone by the last sentence - a biased extrapolation by a biased blogger for a biased conservative group.
This article goes back to a story 6 to 8 years old, for what?
Trump can't be defended, so they live futilely in the past. And the IRS 'scandal' is the past. What's next, a rehash of the White House Travel Office scandal from 1993 ?
Judicial watch is a hyper partisan group that even deals in conspiracy theories. Now they are actively working to help trump while at the same time, trying to rehash old stories.