March 23, 2017

May 21, 2016


You Mean the Dept. of Justice Has to Act Justly??

The courts are slapping Obama’s US Attorneys with reprimands and sanctions, from all parts of the country. On Thursday, federal Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, Texas filed an extraordinary order in the immigration case (Texas v. United States), in which his earlier injunction against DHS’ implementation of President Obama’s directions to delay deportation of millions of illegal aliens, as affirmed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, is now before the United States Supreme Court, awaiting its ruling after oral arguments. The order will require (gasp!) certain US Attorneys based in Washington to take annual courses in legal ethics for the next five years—as a sanction for repeatedly lying to him in his courtroom.

Meanwhile, in Washington itself, the US Attorneys defending the IRS against charges of selectively targeting conservative non-profits to delay or prevent their obtaining tax-exempt status also met with suspicion, if not outright hostility, from the appellate judges before whom they were arguing:

A lower-court judge had blithely accepted the IRS’s claim that the targeting had stopped, that applications for nonprofit status had been approved, and that the matter was therefore moot.

The federal judges hearing the appeal, among them David B. Sentelle and Douglas H. Ginsburg, weren’t so easily rolled. In a series of probing questions the judges ascertained that at least two of the groups that are party to the lawsuit have still not received their nonprofit approvals…. 

The hearing also showed the degree to which the IRS has doubled down on its outrageous revisionist history, and its excuses. IRS lawyers again claimed that the whole targeting affair came down to bad “training” and bad “guidance.” They blew off a Government Accountability Office report that last year found the IRS still had procedures that would allow it to unfairly select organizations for examinations based on religious or political viewpoint. The lawyers’ argument: We wouldn’t do such a thing. Again. Trust us.

More incredibly, the IRS team claimed that the fault for some of the scandal rests with the conservative groups, for not pushing back hard enough during the targeting. In response to complaints that the groups had been forced to hand over confidential information (information the IRS now refuses to destroy), one agency lawyer retorted: “They didn’t have to give the information to the IRS if they thought it was inappropriate, they could have said so.” Really.
...

An IRS lawyer rolled out the defense used by former agency official Lois Lerner that the targeting was just the unfortunate use of “inappropriate” criteria, but Judge Sentelle reminded the lawyer of the IRS’s vindictiveness. He noted that on one occasion the IRS simply shelved the application of an organization that had sued it. The agency “came to Court not having done anything to eliminate” the problem, he said, so “It’s just hard to find the IRS to be an agency we can trust, isn’t it?”

Judge Sentelle said there is a “pretty good case” that “egregious violations of the Constitution” had been committed, and he dared an IRS lawyer to “stand there with a straight face” and say otherwise…

In the Texas case, Judge Hanen was far more severe, but arguably so was the unethical conduct of the US Attorneys from the Department’s headquarters who appeared before him. You may read his order in its entirety here, and there is an excellent background summary of the whole matter here.

What I find amazing is the alacrity with which the leftist news media have leapt to the defense of the “Justice” Department, and accused Judge Hanen of “violating the privacy” of illegal aliens. What did he do? He ordered the Government to file under seal a list of all the aliens to whom it had given deportation extensions while its attorneys were telling him in court that no such extensions were being granted, and that nothing was happening. Imagine that: their privacy is violated because their names and contact information will appear in a document that no one will be permitted to look at until the case is over, and then only if a plaintiff State makes its case to Judge Hanen that it needs access to the names of the immigrants in its borders who received illegal deferments in order to enforce its laws.

In other words, the IRS’s intrusive demands into the names and addresses of donors to non-profit organizations—information which it refuses to destroy now that it has illegally collected it—are as nothing compared to a judge’s order to file under seal a list of those who benefited from the Government’s lying. Go figure.

Still other leftist sites don’t see anything so wrong with what the attorneys did, since it was only to help out innocent “teenagers and young immigrants” who were “caught up in a bureaucratic screwup”. Sure—lying repeatedly to a federal judge is just a “bureaucratic screwup”, and people who entered the country illegally can’t be made to run the risk of exposure “to hostile State governments.” Ethics, shmethics—if you’re a leftist, you do what you gotta do to get what you want.

Even a leftist law professor wonders if Judge Hanen has “jurisdiction” over the DoJ lawyers who practice in states outside of his own—in other words, a judge should be powerless to remedy the consequences of a fraud on his court that injured twenty-six States, and must focus on just the attorneys in his own district (who, Judge Hanen found, were among the few government attorneys who did not lie or misrepresent the facts to him, and whom he consequently exempted from the sanctions he ordered).

Oh, yes—and the Government itself? Turns out that it “strongly disagrees” with Judge Hanen’s order. What did you expect?


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

11 comments

Some time ago a Phoenix TV reporter stated that Arizona had passed a law making it unlawful to be an illegal immigrant.  She may have been right for the wrong reason.

[1] Posted by Pb on 5-21-2016 at 02:45 PM · [top]

So, Nixon was going to be impeached for trying to use the IRS against his enemies, and what has happened to Obama for actually using the IRS against his enemies?  When I took taxation in graduate school it was drilled into us that release of confidential taxpayer information was a serious federal felony punishable by a stiff fine and significant jail time, yet IRS employees leaked form 990 donor lists to a leftist political group who used the information to target the donors.  Guess what happened - a big nothing; the IRS settled out of court to make it go away.  I wonder if any of these federal judges are mysteriously and coincidentally going to get selected for taxpayer compliance audits in the near future.

[2] Posted by Daniel on 5-21-2016 at 05:57 PM · [top]

” I wonder if any of these federal judges are mysteriously and coincidentally going to get selected for taxpayer compliance audits in the near future.”  An excellent question.  Another point is that this corrupt “Justice” Department is very unlikely to indict Hillary Clinton for mishandling of confidential information which would send any ordinary government employee or contractor to jail.

[3] Posted by Katherine on 5-21-2016 at 06:34 PM · [top]

Yes, what Obama has regularly done is many magnitudes worse that the things for which Nixon was impeached.  It shows two things.  A weak, corrupt and ineffective Congress.  And a corrupt media which is now controlled by the Democrat Party.

[4] Posted by Jim the Puritan on 5-22-2016 at 12:36 AM · [top]

No accountability for the progressives; strict accountability for the remainder of us…once again, the rule of law is being flushed away…another reason why it is necessary to keep certain people out of positions of power in government…once the Court system is compromised…all bets are off!

[5] Posted by aacswfl1 on 5-23-2016 at 08:47 AM · [top]

This administration makes the Nixon administration look like Boy Scouts.

[6] Posted by B. Hunter on 5-23-2016 at 06:22 PM · [top]

That so many on the Left cannot grasp the violation of ethics this entailed explains a lot of their salt the earth behavior against those who don’t agree with them.

[7] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 5-23-2016 at 09:24 PM · [top]

In discussing comparison between Obama and Nixon, let’s not overlook the fact that Hillary was on the staff investigating Watergate.  According to her boss he fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

[8] Posted by Nikolaus on 5-23-2016 at 09:47 PM · [top]

The Progressives have adopted the Islamic tactic of taqiyya—lying to gain the goal.  It is perfectly permissible and ethical to lie to further the Progressive cause.

[9] Posted by BillB on 5-24-2016 at 07:55 AM · [top]

Yeah…Hillary hasn’t changed one bit.

[10] Posted by B. Hunter on 5-24-2016 at 08:46 AM · [top]

Well, DOJ might get its chance at Hellary.  Take a gander at this article about her knowing refusal of prescribed information practices:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/state-dept-audit-faults-clinton-in-emails/ar-BBttdFW?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=U219DHP

The Hill might complain about the Trump’s “lack of experience” but I would contend that her known experience if far more dangerous.  She has a track record.  It is not favorable.

[11] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 5-25-2016 at 10:19 AM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.