Several years ago, we all heard about the IRS scandal where they targeted Tea Party and other conservative groups as well as Christian organizations applying for non-profit status. I reported back in 2013 that I firmly believe that the orders to target these groups came directly from the White House:
“According to publicly released records, IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman visited the White House more than any other member of Obama’s Cabinet. In hearings before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, it was made known that 118 of Shulman’s 157 White House visits were made during the period that IRS agents were intentionally targeting tea party and conservatives. In fact, he visited the White House more times than the combined visits of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano.
The number of White House visits released to public records are as follows:
Trending: Freak Show
IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman – 157
Acting Secretary of Commerce Rebecca Blank – 86
Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez – 83
Nominee for Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker – 76
Attorney General Eric Holder – 62
Secretary of State John Kerry – 49
Former Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner – 48
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – 43
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano – 34
Secretary of the Department of Education Arne Duncan – 31
Former Secretary of the Department of Energy Steven Chu – 22
Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates – 17”
Even though the targeting orders most likely came directly from Barack Obama, IRS Supervisor Lois Lerner became the administrations scapegoat for the whole scandal to avert any blame finding its way to the White House.
Now another top Democratic leader has followed the example set by Obama and the IRS. Kamala Harris, California Attorney General and candidate for the US Senate, is trying to extort the names of top donors to charitable organizations. Her department handles the licensing of any charity in the nation that asks for donations from Californians.
For supposedly being the top legal expert in the state, Harris does not seem to be very knowledgeable about the law.
For starters, there was the case of NAACP v. Alabama, in which the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the state of Alabama to demand the names and addresses of everyone belonging to the NAACP who lived in the state.
Remember Tricky Dicky Nixon and the Watergate scandal that led to Nixon’s eventual resignation from the presidency? After it was learned that Nixon had used tax returns to gain information on his political enemies, Congress tightened up the tax codes to prevent that from happening again.
But that didn’t stop Obama from trying the same thing a few years ago and it’s evidently not stopping Harris from trying it again. A federal lawsuit was filed against Harris by Americans for Prosperity Foundation and the Thomas More Law Center. The case went before the United States District Court for the Central District of California who issued an injunction to stop Harris from obtaining IRS Form 990 Schedule B information from APF.
However, that decision was appealed to the United State Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit who overturned the District Court’s ruling. In their ruling, they stated that unless the plaintiffs could show how the gathering of tax return information on major donors caused damage to the donors, they had no grounds on which to stop the Attorney General from gathering the IRS information.
Since David Koch, one of the Koch brothers known for their conservative Republican views and support, is the Chairman of Americans for Prosperity Foundation, I suspect that the Appeals Court’s decision will end up in the hands of the US Supreme Court. The question there is whether the Supreme Court will stand by previous rulings or will the rule in favor of Harris and allow her to demand information on those who oppose her political views and agenda? At this stage of the current high court’s history, anything is possible.