Republicans Freak Out At Learning Reagan Decree Protects Lois Lerner

[DonViejo]

WASHINGTON -- Although legal experts warned at the time that little would come of Rep. Darrell Issa's (R-Calif.) attempt to prosecute former IRS official Lois Lerner for contempt of Congress, Republicans on Issa's Oversight and Government Reform Committee were infuriated to learn Thursday that a key obstacle is a Reagan administration legal opinion.

Issa's committee and then the full House voted to hold Lerner in contempt because she twice asserted her Fifth Amendment right in refusing to testify about her role in the IRS's botched screening of political nonprofits. She led the unit that oversees whether such groups get tax breaks, and was in charge when an inspector general found the IRS used "inappropriate" terms that largely singled out conservative groups.

-snip-

At Thursday's hearing, several Republicans demanded that Deputy Attorney General James Cole explain why prosecutors had not already moved forward. "This Congress held Lois Lerner in contempt, geez, almost nine weeks ago," Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) said, citing the procedure that's spelled out in law that says the prosecutor's duty "shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury."

But Cole noted that the prosecutor still gets to decide. "My understanding of the law is that it does not strip the U.S. attorney of the normal discretion that the U.S. attorney has," Cole said. "He proceeds with the case if he believes it is appropriate to do so." His answer infuriated Republicans, especially Issa, who demanded proof.

"If you think that's discretionary, would you please give that back to us in a legal opinion so that we can change the law to make it clear you're wrong," Issa said. Issa's Democratic counterpart on the committee, Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.) was happy to find that opinion himself, written by conservative lawyer Theodore Olson when he worked for President Ronald Reagan's Office of Legal Counsel in 1984.

"What it says is, 'We believe Congress may not direct the executive to prosecute a particular individual without leaving any discretion to the executive to determine whether a violation of the law has occurred.' That's what the opinion says -- a 1984 opinion dated May 30," Cummings said. "This was a contempt citation coming from Congress that he was talking about."

-snip-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/19/darrell-issa-contempt_n_5600789.html

[bluestateguy]

1. The whole idea of contempt of Congress is stupid

Congress, controlled by one party, hold an official of the executive branch, controlled by the other party in contempt.

But contempt of Congress means nothing if it is not prosecuted by the Justice Department.

Guess who controls the Justice Department.

Geez.

We went through this with the charade that was Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten in the Bush years.

[Wounded Bear]

2. Hoisted on their own petard...

by their own hero.

[underpants]

3. Hilarious

[BumRushDaShow]

4. And....