Judge orders IRS to come up with better explanation of missing Lerner e-mails

posted at 1:21 pm on August 15, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

The dog-ate-my-homework – er, excuse me, hard-drive-ate-our-emails excuse did just about as well in federal court as it would during an IRS audit. Judge Emmet Sullivan rejected the IRS’ response to the Judicial Watch complaint about missing e-mails from Lois Lerner and other IRS employees involved in the targeting scandal yesterday. Sullivan in effect took steps to conduct his own independent probe, issuing an order demanding specific answers — and demanding them by one week from today:

A federal judge asked the U.S. Internal Revenue Service for more information on efforts it made to recover missing e-mail from the computer of an agency official at the heart of a quarrel between Congress and the Obama administration over scrutiny of Tea Party organizations.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan’s order today giving the IRS until Aug. 22 to come up with further details on what it did to retrieve e-mail from the malfunctioning computer of Lois Lerner signals his dissatisfaction with the agency’s earlier explanation, contained in an Aug. 11 filing.

The order comes in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the activist group Judicial Watch. The complaint seeks Lerner’s e-mail and other communications concerning the processing of applications for tax-exempt status.

“Asked” is a bit too generous. Legal Insurrection has the actual document from Sullivan, in which “asked” is replaced by “ORDERED” — caps in the original, although Bill Jacobson has added other emphasis and formatting:

MINUTE ORDER. In light of [26] the Declarations filed by the IRS, the IRS is hereby ORDERED to file a sworn Declaration, by an official with the authority to speak under oath for the Agency, by no later than August 22, 2014.

In this Declaration, the IRS must:

(1) provide information about its efforts, if any, to recover missing Lois Lerner emails from alternate sources (i.e., Blackberry, iPhone, iPad);

(2) provide additional information explaining the IRS’s policy of tracking inventory through use of bar code property tags, including whether component parts, such as hard drives, receive a bar code tag when serviced. If individual components do not receive a bar code tag, provide information on how the IRS tracks component parts, such as hard drives, when being serviced;

(3) provide information about the IRS’s policy to degauss hard drives, including whether the IRS records whose hard drive is degaussed, either by tracking the employee’s name or the particular machine with which the hard drive was associated; and

(4) provide information about the outside vendor who can verify the IRS’s destruction policies concerning hard drives.

“ORDERED.” “Must.” “Speak under oath.” These are not really requests, and the time frame isn’t an expression of curiosity, either. Giving the IRS a single week to meet these demands after months of wrangling over Judicial Watch’s challenge implies that (a) Sullivan’s pretty convinced the IRS has these answers, which then suggests that  (b) Sullivan’s getting angry over the IRS’ intransigence and opacity in dealing with the court. Either Judge Sullivan has run out of patience, or he wants the IRS to think he has.

Needless to say, this makes Judicial Watch pretty happy:

In an extraordinary step, U. S. District Court Judge Emmett Sullivan has launched an independent inquiry into the issue of the missing emails associated with former IRS official Lois Lerner.

Previously, Judge Sullivan ordered the IRS to produce sworn declarations about the IRS email issue by August 11. Today’s order confirms Judicial Watch’s read of this week’s IRS’ filings that treated as a joke Judge Sullivan’s order.

Judge Sullivan, in his earlier ruling, appointed Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola to manage and assist in discussions between Judicial Watch and the IRS about how to obtain any missing records from other sources. Magistrate Facciola is an expert in e-discovery, and authorized Judicial Watch to submit a request for limited discovery into the missing IRS records after September 10.

The demand to produce testimony under oath in court sets up an interesting moment, too. The IRS has provided conflicting answers to Congress about the status of e-mail and the ongoing efforts to retrieve the records of Lerner and others. At different times, the IRS has told the House Ways and Means and Oversight committees that they had the records, that the records were lost, that some of the records may still be retrievable, and that they never knew Lerner had a Blackberry — even though some of her extant communications showed clearly that she used it for e-mail. How will the IRS resolve all of those contradictions in sworn testimony, under penalty of perjury?

We’ll have to wait until at least next week to see. Whatever they come up with is likely to differ yet again from what’s come before it, and it’s doubtful that will make Judge Sullivan any happier than he is at the moment.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

“we were ordered to destroy the emails”

that’s about the only answer that really will settle this thing.

Dino V on August 15, 2014 at 1:24 PM

Finally. An actual scandal.

libfreeordie on May 19, 2014 at 3:48 PM

Schadenfreude on August 15, 2014 at 1:24 PM

Thank you, President Obama!

Ned Pepper on August 11, 2014 at 3:47 PM

Schadenfreude on August 15, 2014 at 1:25 PM

Judge: Find an excuse that makes sense.

IRS: The dog ate the emails. Them Obama ate the dog.

Judge: case dismissed.

portlandon on August 15, 2014 at 1:25 PM

Nothing to see here..

Only fearmongering and scaring the populace

Ned Pepper on August 11, 2014 at 12:46 PM

Schadenfreude on August 15, 2014 at 1:25 PM

Until the apparatchiks end up in jail it’s all just talk. The IRS isn’t an individual person, what if nobody wants to testify?

Fenris on August 15, 2014 at 1:27 PM

But … but … courts and laws only apply to the serfs, not their civil masters.

Closet Optimist on August 15, 2014 at 1:28 PM

The dog-homework pic cracked me up, heh.

whatcat on August 15, 2014 at 1:32 PM

If Lerner’s not in jail yet it’s hard to imagine that anyone is going to squirm over this. That would have been the first step to loosen the tongues of the ones willing to save their own skin.

Buddahpundit on August 15, 2014 at 1:33 PM

I still think the IRS will run out the clock for as long as possible, given that the likelihood of Lerner heading directly to jail without passing Go and collecting $200 is increasing. That way, if it’s near to the end of Obama’s second term (assuming he doesn’t run for a third!), he can just pardon her and say that it’s unfair to throw an innocent, upstanding citizen of the world community like Lois Lerner into prison because of racist, fear-mongering Tea Partier claims.

Oh, and if the Lerner story continues into the 2016 election (which begins much, much earlier), the media can shout “DISTRACTION!” as usual any time a Democrat scandal comes up.

Aizen on August 15, 2014 at 1:34 PM

The grip is tightening…now it’s jail time for perjury.

Now it’s, do I lose everything? or Do I turn over everything.

This is the beginning of the end.

right2bright on August 15, 2014 at 1:34 PM

But, But IRS DID NOTHING WRONG according to smart people in the media like John Steward and the rest of them. This Judge must be Racist or something. No one working for the government is ever corrupt that is why they should be in charge of EVERYTHING. /s

BroncosRock on August 15, 2014 at 1:35 PM

Oh, and if the Lerner story continues into the 2016 election (which begins much, much earlier), the media can shout “DISTRACTION!” as usual any time a Democrat scandal comes up.

Aizen on August 15, 2014 at 1:34 PM

And if it extends beyond, that is a gamble, she is in jail…I see a plea in my crystal ball…

right2bright on August 15, 2014 at 1:36 PM

Excellent

cmsinaz on August 15, 2014 at 1:36 PM

BroncosRock on August 15, 2014 at 1:35 PM

All it takes is a “smidgeon”.

right2bright on August 15, 2014 at 1:36 PM

How will the IRS resolve all of those contradictions in sworn testimony, under penalty of perjury?

Looks like Obama’s pardon pen will be getting a serious workout the week before he (hopefully) departs the White House in 2017. And that’s just to get IRS folks off the hook.

Bitter Clinger on August 15, 2014 at 1:40 PM

And the crickets from the media plays on…

bigGwillie on August 15, 2014 at 1:40 PM

If that “Person with Authority” is also required to be in court when that document is presented, I would recommend that he bring his tooth-brush, just in case.

Another Drew on August 15, 2014 at 1:41 PM

if the Lerner story continues into the 2016 election (which begins much, much earlier),

That election begins 5 November 2014.

Another Drew on August 15, 2014 at 1:43 PM

And if it extends beyond, that is a gamble, she is in jail…I see a plea in my crystal ball…

right2bright on August 15, 2014 at 1:36 PM

But if a Republican like Cruz manages to win the White House in 2016? The media will almost reflexively lambast a hypothetical Cruz Administration for abusing its victory and newfound power for political means by going after a Democrat.

This hag needs to be jailed or flipped before the 2016 election.

Aizen on August 15, 2014 at 1:43 PM

That election begins 5 November 2014.

Another Drew on August 15, 2014 at 1:43 PM

True.

I heard on the news a little while ago that Christie says he’ll decide whether or not to roll run in 2016 after the midterms.

Damn it, that means all Lerner and the IRS have to do is stonewall all investigations for the next 81/82 days.

Aizen on August 15, 2014 at 1:46 PM

Looks like Obama’s pardon pen will be getting a serious workout the week before he (hopefully) departs the White House in 2017. And that’s just to get IRS folks off the hook.

Bitter Clinger on August 15, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Doesn’t that pen only apply to convicted persons? Not likely anyone will be convicted before 2017.

wifarmboy on August 15, 2014 at 1:49 PM

How can you racists talk about missing paperwork when dozens hundreds thousands millions of teens are getting murdered by cops every day?

faraway on August 15, 2014 at 1:49 PM

“Asked” is a bit too generous.

It’s just wrong. A court’s demand isn’t a request.

RadClown on August 15, 2014 at 1:51 PM

Shades of “Hon. John Sirica” in the early days of the Watergate scandal. Now, if someone from inside the IRS would just pen a “James McCord” letter to the judge exposing the higher-ups and their wrongdoing, we can get somewhere.

ugottabekiddingme on August 15, 2014 at 1:52 PM

Looks like Obama’s pardon pen will be getting a serious workout the week before he (hopefully) departs the White House in 2017. And that’s just to get IRS folks off the hook.

Bitter Clinger on August 15, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Doesn’t that pen only apply to convicted persons? Not likely anyone will be convicted before 2017.
wifarmboy on August 15, 2014 at 1:49 PM

Not necessarily. Ford pardoned Nixon even though Nixon was never convicted. Pardons can apply to people who could face a likelihood of being convicted if they were brought to trial.

Bitter Clinger on August 15, 2014 at 1:58 PM

Doesn’t that pen only apply to convicted persons? Not likely anyone will be convicted before 2017.

wifarmboy on August 15, 2014 at 1:49 PM

Not Necessarily. Ford pardoned Nixon even though he had not even been indicted. Nixon got a full pardon for all offenses against the United States in order to put the Watergate Scandal behind all concerned.

Happy Nomad on August 15, 2014 at 2:00 PM

Bitter Clinger on August 15, 2014 at 1:58 PM

Beat me to it! And almost an identical post too!

Happy Nomad on August 15, 2014 at 2:01 PM

Why does this matter? The judge is a federal judge. All the guys providing enforcement for federal judicial orders work for Obama, don’t they?

Kohath on August 15, 2014 at 2:01 PM

Someone will be quietly letting Judge Sullivan know that the NSA has records that might be embarrassing to him if they “leaked” out. Meanwhile, the IRS/OSHA/FBI/EEOC/Etc will be visiting family members and friends to check up on compliance with a slew of obscure but serious federal regulations.

jnelchef on August 15, 2014 at 2:02 PM

Now, if someone from inside the IRS would just pen a “James McCord” letter to the judge exposing the higher-ups and their wrongdoing, we can get somewhere.

ugottabekiddingme on August 15, 2014 at 1:52 PM

Well it sure as heck isn’t going to be a Richard Windsor letter but one ignored scandal at a time. I still think that the “good stuff” for Lerner is sitting out there under a fake e-mail account of her own.

Happy Nomad on August 15, 2014 at 2:03 PM

Given that from day one when I heard the original excuse that the IRS has pretty much f*cking lied through their collective(ist) a$$es, I am pretty impressed the judge has exercised this level of “patience.”

Those who would smugly flat-out lie to my face and blatantly break the law would consider himself lucky to walk away with just a broken nose – especially in light of the number of people whose lives have been severely disrupted by IRS inquisitions.

Frankly, I think the judge should have tossed a few in prison until the truth came out.

Or, he can send them to St. Louis and let the mobs have something to vent their rage upon.

Turtle317 on August 15, 2014 at 2:03 PM

Well Judge, we admit that we were less than candid (we were lying) before, but we’re not lying NOW!

Honest Injun!

Cross our hearts, hope the Tea Party DIES!

Oh, wait.

TRUST US!

GarandFan on August 15, 2014 at 2:06 PM

Koskinen has a week to come up with some legalese he can ooze under oath.

Another Drew on August 15, 2014 at 1:43 PM

The fifth of November?

Remember, Remember,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaGxhpD1NZ4

dogsoldier on August 15, 2014 at 2:06 PM

Magistrate Facciola is an expert in e-discovery

Well, we’ll see. A real ‘expert in e-discovery’ won’t buy the cr@p that the emails existed only on LL’s hard drive and nowhere else. He’ll know there’s email servers with backups and probably journaling.
He’ll know how to find the systems administrators directly responsible for those email servers, and the questions to ask them under oath. Either they’ll find the backups or they’ll identify who ordered them to not run them or to destroy them.

Marcola on August 15, 2014 at 2:06 PM

The grip is tightening…now it’s jail time for perjury.

right2bright on August 15, 2014 at 1:34 PM

Who prosecutes perjury? Eric Holder’s DOJ?

J-Paul00 on August 15, 2014 at 2:11 PM

Lerner is, by far, not the only person who is in increasing jeopardy over the cover-up, obfuscation, and criminal violations of privacy / federal records act. Steven Miller, former Commissioner is at risk as is his former CoS, Nicole Flax. The current hack, Koskinen is at risk as is every Chief Counsel since 2010. The shulbs who are going to be replying, under oath, are going to be at risk – and the same with any IT personnel who will be named.

The best that the WH / Admin / IRS can hope for at this point is that the cover-up, obfuscation, and criminal violations are limited to within those in the IRS – that there is no break in the wall pointing to the WH political side or the WH Chief Counsel’s office (as I personally believe exist).

There will be indictments – and the ‘True the Vote’ and Judicial Watch cases will be the one’s that bring this forward.

But I entirely expect that the WH will be offering pardon’s wholesale on this…. it’s how they will maintain as much of the omerta as possible.

Athos on August 15, 2014 at 2:12 PM

Hmmm. “Nice courtroom ya’ got here judge; too bad if you was to get audited and couldn’t sit in your big chair every day.”

2ndMAW68 on August 15, 2014 at 2:15 PM

Beat me to it! And almost an identical post too!

Happy Nomad on August 15, 2014 at 2:01 PM

HA!!!

Great minds do indeed think alike!!

Bitter Clinger on August 15, 2014 at 2:18 PM

Good news, but just some context on court orders. The phrase “ORDERED” in all caps does not denote anger. It’s just the common way court orders are type dup. Some courts use old timey language like , ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED.

It’s significant the judge ordered the IRS to provide information under oath, but the text of the order itself does not reveal much about the Judge’s state of mind.

hamiltmc on August 15, 2014 at 2:21 PM

The grip is tightening…now it’s jail time for perjury.

right2bright on August 15, 2014 at 1:34 PM

And who would prosecute perjury? Eric Holder’s DOJ?

J-Paul00 on August 15, 2014 at 2:21 PM

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan

Why does this matter? The judge is a federal judge. All the guys providing enforcement for federal judicial orders work for Obama, don’t they?

Kohath on August 15, 2014 at 2:01 PM

wiki

On June 16, 1994, Judge Sullivan was appointed by President Bill Clinton to serve as United States District Judge for the District of Columbia.

But hold the phone…

Sullivan was appointed by President Reagan to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on October 3, 1984. On November 25, 1991, Sullivan was appointed by President George H. W. Bush to serve as an Associate Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Del Dolemonte on August 15, 2014 at 2:22 PM

But I entirely expect that the WH will be offering pardon’s wholesale on this…. it’s how they will maintain as much of the omerta as possible.

Athos on August 15, 2014 at 2:12 PM

They might be safer in jail. As much as Holder and the White House love to screw around with the law, the IRS impacts pretty much everybody.

I know a few people who would go out of their way to pay those lawbreakers a special visit – so handing out pardons wouldn’t exactly be the wisest course of action.

But then again, who said this administration was smart? Clever, maybe, but not smart.

Turtle317 on August 15, 2014 at 2:22 PM

Lerner is, by far, not the only person who is in increasing jeopardy over the cover-up, obfuscation, and criminal violations of privacy / federal records act. Steven Miller, former Commissioner is at risk as is his former CoS, Nicole Flax. The current hack, Koskinen is at risk as is every Chief Counsel since 2010. The shulbs who are going to be replying, under oath, are going to be at risk – and the same with any IT personnel who will be named.

The best that the WH / Admin / IRS can hope for at this point is that the cover-up, obfuscation, and criminal violations are limited to within those in the IRS – that there is no break in the wall pointing to the WH political side or the WH Chief Counsel’s office (as I personally believe exist).

There will be indictments – and the ‘True the Vote’ and Judicial Watch cases will be the one’s that bring this forward.

But I entirely expect that the WH will be offering pardon’s wholesale on this…. it’s how they will maintain as much of the omerta as possible.

Athos on August 15, 2014 at 2:12 PM

I suspect that ALL scandals lead to Valerie Jarrett, since she is Barry’s brain. As he slides into full-retirement I expect her power to only grow.

slickwillie2001 on August 15, 2014 at 2:25 PM

The judge does not seem mad enough to me. They have, in effect, spit in his face and he’s giving them more time? How about some contempt of court action?

Lonetown on August 15, 2014 at 2:27 PM

Aaron Signor, an IRS technician that looked at Lerner’s hard drive in June 2011, said in IRS court filings that he saw no damage to the drive before sending it off to another IRS technician, leading some in the media to suggest that the lost emails scandal is basically over. But Signor’s statement, issued in response to the Judicial Watch lawsuit, does not jibe with sworn congressional testimony.

The Daily Caller reported that Lerner’s hard drive was “scratched” and then “shredded,” according to a court filing the IRS made to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

J_Crater on August 15, 2014 at 2:31 PM

My prediction:

The IRS chiefs actually believed than when they told their subordinates to wipe out all incriminating evidence those subordinates actually did so.

The subordinates know full well their bosses will throw them to the dogs at the first sign someone might get held accountable. I promise you that one of those low level employees has all the information as an insurance policy and will hang their faithless bosses when the crunch time comes.

E9RET on August 15, 2014 at 2:37 PM

the IRS is hereby ORDERED to file a sworn Declaration, by an official with the authority to speak under oath for the Agency, by no later than August 22, 2014.

The rubber is about to meet the road.

Barky’s LSM is going to have to rev up the distractions even higher than they are currently running – and they have quite a tinderbox of stories to work with. I’d put my money on major race riots in the streets, but ISIS, Ukraine, Ebola or Gaza could jump out further as well.

bofh on August 15, 2014 at 2:42 PM

“we were ordered to destroy the emails”
that’s about the only answer that really will settle this thing.

Dino V on August 15, 2014 at 1:24 PM

Um, no – the Nurenburg Defense is not recognized in US Courts.

Additionally, there are express provisions in the US Code against such things, and moreso within the IRS Code because of the sensitivity of the information that the IRS deals with. Complying with an order to destroy emails outside of the normal data-retention specifications makes that person complicit. That means jail time, if convicted.

It’s also why the judge demands testimony under oath. The IRS better get that right, or they face charges of criminal perjury. Which also means jail time, if convicted.

ss396 on August 15, 2014 at 2:47 PM

From a Headline thread….

HHS HealthCare.gov official: “Delete this email”

The instruction appears significant for several reasons: First, the email to be deleted included an exchange between key White House officials and CMS officials. Second, the email was dated October 5, 2013, five days into the disastrous launch of HealthCare.gov. Third, federal law requires federal officials to retain copies of –not delete– email exchanges. And fourth, the document to be deleted is covered under Congressional subpoena as well as longstanding Freedom of Information requests made by members of the media (including me).

This, as I noted in that thread, is to me a smoking gun that the actions of HHS, the IRS, the EPA, the DoJ, the FEC, and other Executive Branch departments and agencies are part of a coordinated (from the WH) action to cover-up, obfuscate, and evade any outside oversight and scrutiny of their illegal actions and abuses of power.

This comes from the WH – the political side, the Chief Counsel, and or most likely from Obama’s inner circle (VJ) or Obama himself – well at least before he decided to check out as King Lame Duck I.

Athos on August 15, 2014 at 2:49 PM

Ned, would you get over here. Obama’s nads are getting cold.

CW on August 15, 2014 at 2:51 PM

If they get a pardon, does having a pardon prevent them from taking advantage of the Fifth Admendment?

goatweed on August 15, 2014 at 2:58 PM

Marcola,
Exactly.

The hard drive(s) is not the problem.

Solve the problem.

Apologies to Michael Crighton.

Tenwheeler on August 15, 2014 at 3:06 PM

Great pic, Ed. I wish they would slap these folks with contempt.

John the Libertarian on August 15, 2014 at 3:11 PM

This is the ultimate reality soap opera. You can ignore for a year and come back and it is no closer to resolving issues than it was before. Truly the wheels of justice are moving slow, or stopped or going backwards!!

Deano1952 on August 15, 2014 at 3:12 PM

One thing I have not heard throughout all of the talk of the lost emails – if Lois Lerner sent someone an email, it should still be in the RECEPIENT’S mailbox. If someone sent her an email, it should be in the sender’s “Sent Items”. They should be able to recover a lot of her correspondence this way. Has anyone suggested it? Not that I’ve seen.

grahampowell on August 15, 2014 at 3:16 PM

“we were ordered to destroy the emails [...]”

that’s about the only answer that really will settle this thing.

Dino V on August 15, 2014 at 1:24 PM

“…but we don’t know by whom.”

PersonFromPorlock on August 15, 2014 at 3:24 PM

Team SCOAMT had hoped to wait until 11/2/2016 (the day after the 2016 election) to make public the mass pardons of itself. Now, I wonder whether they’ll be able to make it to 11/5/2014 (the day after the 2014 election) before having to announce the first of the pardons.

One thing I have not heard throughout all of the talk of the lost emails – if Lois Lerner sent someone an email, it should still be in the RECEPIENT’S mailbox. If someone sent her an email, it should be in the sender’s “Sent Items”. They should be able to recover a lot of her correspondence this way. Has anyone suggested it? Not that I’ve seen.

grahampowell on August 15, 2014 at 3:16 PM

It only works if (a) you know exactly who Lerner corresponded with and (b) if that entity is a government entity.

Steve Eggleston on August 15, 2014 at 3:28 PM

Does anybody in charge at the IRS have clean hands on this?

They can probably all plead the 5th, unless the judge grants immunity from prosecution.

I don’t think a court order can be used to deprive a person of their right against self-incrimination.

The response to the court order could be rather interesting and informative, even if the judge doesn’t get the information demanded (or maybe especially if the judge doesn’t get the information demanded).

s1im on August 15, 2014 at 3:30 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmet_G._Sullivan

Judge Sullivan is black and a hard ass according to Greta Van Susteren!

JAM on August 15, 2014 at 3:34 PM

What if they just decide not to comply?

BKeyser on August 15, 2014 at 3:36 PM

And now they’ll be glad to talk about this since Ferguson MO is looking like another race bait.

formwiz on August 15, 2014 at 4:01 PM

Excellent article, Ed Morrissey.

If I had a say, I’d vote for more articles like this and fewer about what fool said what stupid thing on MSNBC.

MichaelGabriel on August 15, 2014 at 4:09 PM

why won’t someone think of the poor exchange servers….
done in a simpsons think of the children voice.

dmacleo on August 15, 2014 at 4:36 PM

What if they just decide not to comply?

BKeyser on August 15, 2014 at 3:36 PM

That’s the question isn’t it? How many divisions does the judge have?

slickwillie2001 on August 15, 2014 at 4:40 PM

Judge Emmet Sullivan rejected the IRS’ response to the Judicial Watch complaint about missing e-mails from Lois Lerner and other IRS employees involved in the targeting scandal yesterday.

Ummm, excuse me, but did all this scandal just occur yesterday?

Sorry, I couldn’t avoid stumbling over that little grammatical awkwardness! ;-)

Good to know someone (Judge Sullivan) has their head on straight. Hope he has good bodyguards.

bigbeachbird on August 15, 2014 at 5:16 PM

That’s the question isn’t it? How many divisions does the judge have?

slickwillie2001 on August 15, 2014 at 4:40 PM

Not enough, particularly with the DoJ running front line interference for the WH and the rest of the Exec Branch.

There would be few alternatives left for enforcement of the law, and an utterly destructive precedent would be set by this feckless Administration.

Athos on August 15, 2014 at 5:48 PM

For all of the commenters talking about pardons and such. Obama CANNOT pardon somebody that HAS NOT been convicted of a crime. So far, Lerner has not been convicted of anything and neither has anyone else.

If that is the case come 2017, and The Repubs take the White House, many people in Oblamers administration are going to be up sh!t creek without a paddle.

PakviRoti on August 15, 2014 at 7:15 PM

The IRS people know the clock is being run out with kabuki theater until the January 2016 Presidential Pardons.
Sure, maybe some low-level stooge will take the fall, but only until Jan 2016.

Everybody walks.

Tard on August 15, 2014 at 7:17 PM

Uh, Jan 2017.

Tard on August 15, 2014 at 7:18 PM

The judge ordered the IRS! What if no one at the IRS will come forward and “speak under oath for the Agency.” What will the judge do? Put the building in jail until the “IRS” comes up with the info. Also who will enforce his orders if the judge picks someone at the IRS to respond, Eric Holder.

IRS’s Jug eared minions are just laughing at us going nener nener nener.

1791 on August 16, 2014 at 1:19 AM