Will IRS’s Strategy of Destroying Evidence Pay Off?

If the latest revelations about the IRS are correct, then its officials have approached the abuse-of-power scandal with a clear strategy, pretty much from the beginning. They have been betting that, since their illegal targeting campaign against those who disagree with President Obama has had the backing of Democrats in Congress, they needed only a media strategy, not a political one. And that media strategy appears to have been: conceal or destroy potential (and actual) evidence, and assume that this activity will be less damaging than whatever is in the files they’ve worked to hide.

It’s a direct challenge to the media, in other words.

There are two aspects to the latest news. The first is that, according to Judicial Watch, the Justice Department believes Lerner’s records are backed up, but don’t want to put in the effort to find them:

Department of Justice attorneys for the Internal Revenue Service told Judicial Watch on Friday that Lois Lerner’s emails, indeed all government computer records, are backed up by the federal government in case of a government-wide catastrophe.  The Obama administration attorneys said that this back-up system would be too onerous to search.  The DOJ attorneys also acknowledged that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) is investigating this back-up system.

We obviously disagree that disclosing the emails as required would be onerous, and plan to raise this new development with Judge Sullivan.

This is a jaw-dropping revelation.  The Obama administration had been lying to the American people about Lois Lerner’s missing emails. There are no “missing” Lois Lerner emails – nor missing emails of any of the other top IRS or other government officials whose emails seem to be disappearing at increasingly alarming rate. All the focus on missing hard drives has been a diversion. The Obama administration has known all along where the email records could be – but dishonestly withheld this information. You can bet we are going to ask the court for immediate assistance in cutting through this massive obstruction of justice.

The second piece of news is pointed out by the New York Observer:

In two elusive and nebulous sworn declarations, we can glean that Ms. Lerner had two Blackberries. One was issued to her on November 12, 2009. According to a sworn declaration, this is the Blackberry that contained all the emails (both sent and received) that would have been in her “Outlook” and drafts that never were sent from her Blackberry during the relevant time.

With incredible disregard for the law and the Congressional inquiry, the IRS admits that this Blackberry “was removed or wiped clean of any sensitive or proprietary information and removed as scrap for disposal in June 2012.” This is a year after her hard drive “crash” and months after the Congressional inquiry began.

So the IRS attempted to destroy evidence of the emails after the investigation began, and those emails might still exist somewhere beyond the reach of the government officials in charge of destroying the evidence. Again, this is a direct challenge to the media: the IRS is expecting either a pass or scandal fatigue to play to their advantage. That is, they are hoping to set a precedent that the government can get away with heavyhanded abuse of its power so long as it destroys enough of the evidence once an investigation commences.

It is especially a challenge to the press if it’s true that the emails still exist but the government doesn’t want to go through the hassle of finding them. It’s actually more brazen, in some ways, than even trying to destroy them. It’s the sign of a government with nothing but pure contempt for the people. As Walter Russell Mead argues:

But if Fitton’s claim is true, then the IRS scandal really has arrived, and it is difficult not to conclude that we are dealing with a genuine constitutional crime. This wouldn’t be a matter of bribes or personal blackmail or sexual misconduct or any of the ordinary forms of corruption that are unfortunately far too common. Rather, it’s about the deliberate use of the power of the federal government to go after political opponents, and then a desperate attempt by others to cover it up. We’re still hoping that this story is exposed to a lot more light (and perhaps less heat), but the more we see, the worse and worse it looks.

Indeed, it would go beyond the sadly all-too-routinized forms of corruption, which are bad enough. The newest round of revelations describe a government agency (and its elected allies) not only thoroughly corrupted but also insistent on its entitlement to stand above accountability. The allegations warrant front-page headlines from the country’s major newspapers, surely. So where are they?

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/08/26/will-irss-strategy-of-destroying-evidence-pay-off/

George Will on IRS: "It Is Off The Rails And It Is Now Thoroughly Corrupted"

GEORGE WILL: I can just hardly wait until the IRS lawyers go into that courtroom and tell the judge that it would be too onerous to stop obstructing justice in this case. That's a really interesting defense. You know, Lily Tomlin, the comedian, used to have a character, the Bag Lady, who said, 'no matter how cynical you get you, just can't keep up.' And that's the way it was with the IRS.

Remember this thing began in deceit with Lois Lerner planting a question to reveal this getting ahead of the Inspector General of the IRS report. Then there were a few rogue agents in Cincinnati. The IRS is the most intrusive and potentially punitive institution of the federal government and it is a law enforcement institution and it is off the rails and it is now thoroughly corrupted.

People are saying, 'well, the Justice Department can take care of this.' There is a reason why Jack Kennedy had his brother [as] Attorney General. There is a reason why Richard Nixon had his campaign manager John Mitchell [as] Attorney General. It is an inherently political office and it can't be trusted in cases like this.

Sen. Cruz Questions IRS About Decision To Audit Breitbart News

IG says Justice Department caused 'significant delays' in investigations

Department of Justice senior officials have barred or delayed the inspector general there from gaining access to documents crucial to high-visibility investigations.

"The FBI and some other department components ... have refused our requests for various types of documents. As a result, a number of our reviews have been significantly impeded," IG Michael Horowitz told the House Committee on the Judiciary Tuesday.

Horowitz said DOJ officials caused "significant delays in gaining access to important documents" in the IG's review of Operation Fast and Furious.

Operation Fast and Furious was a DOJ program that allowed gun-running into Mexico in an effort to generate evidence to be used against drug cartels.

U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed in 2010 with one of an estimated 1,400 guns shipped to Mexico as a result of the program.

Horowitz also said FBI objections delayed an investigation of DOJ's use of the federal material witness statute in international terrorism, as well as an investigation of the FBI's use of national security letters.

The Inspector General Act of 1978 grants IGs "access to all records, reports, audits, reviews, documents, papers, recommendations or other material" within a federal department or agency.

Horowitz said he appreciated efforts by Attorney General Eric Holder and Deputy Attorney General James Cole to intervene on behalf of IG requests.

But Horowitz said having to rely upon DOJ's senior leaders to gain access to documents Congress clearly intends to be given to IGs on request is inconsistent with the law.

In addition, such dependence "compromises our independence. The IG Act expressly provides that an independent inspector general should decide whether documents are relevant to an IG's work; however, the current process at the department instead places that decision and authority in the leadership of the agency that is being subjected to our oversight."

Having to seek permission to gain access to documents also "results in delays to our audits and reviews, consumes an inordinate amount of OIG staff time and my time, as well as time from the attorney general's and deputy attorney general's busy schedules."

Horowitz' testimony came in a hearing by the committee concerning a recent letter to Congress signed by Horowitz and 46 other IGs describing multiple instances of obstruction by executive branch officials.

In an apparent allusion to the Justice Department's bungled prosecution of former Sen. Ted Stevens, Horowitz noted that Holder's policy also requires IG investigators to ask for documents concerning allegations of official misconduct by government lawyers.

No such limits are placed, however, on DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility, which also investigates such allegations.

"This disparate treatment ... is unjustifiable and results in the department being less willing to provide materials to the IG, presumably because the IG is statutorily independent, while OPR is not," Horowitz said.

Two prosecutors in the 2008 case against Stevens failed to turn over to defense lawyers exculpatory evidence concerning allegations that the then-Alaska senator benefitted personally from his relationship with an oil company.

The prosecutors were disciplined but not fired following an investigation by the OPR. Stevens, who lost his re-election effort because of the case, died in a plane crash two years later.

Horowitz called on Congress to grant specific authority to his office to investigate allegations of misconduct by government attorneys.

Legislation now pending — the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2014 — would grant that authority, he noted.

The bill was endorsed earlier this year by the Project on Government Oversight, a non-partisan non-profit that investigates waste and fraud in government.

Mark Tapscott is executive editor of the Washington Examiner.