Dems on the House Oversight Committee have released transcripts showing that an IRS manager in Cincinnati — who refers to himself as a conservative Republican — is the one who came up with the idea of centralizing Tea Party-type applications for review. I think centralize is a better word for what happened than “targeting,” with its perjorative connotation. It makes sense to centralize similar applications to make sure that you are processing them consistently, and that’s exactly what the manager says he was doing.
He also says that the White House wasn’t involved.
Some IRS officials in Washington became involved as well after the Cincinnati guy originated his centralized reviews, but there’s no evidence that they weren’t trying to find fair criteria to judge how much of these groups’ activities was political and not “general welfare” to determine if they deserved a tax exemption as 501(c)(4) groups.
But Darrell Issa’s attempts to portray a White House going after its “enemies” as Richard Nixon tried to do seems exaggerated and misguided.
I was angry at the White House for initially acquiescing right away that there was an IRS “scandal” here at all and for accepting the term “targeting” of Tea Party groups. Centralizing is not targeting.
Sen. Lindsey “Butters” Graham (R-SC) suddenly seems to realize that Marco Rubio (R-FL), his fellow “Gang of Eight” member on immigration reform, is walking running away from the very reform he helped draft, leaving Graham twisting in the wind.
Poor Butters says he’s puzzled. Um, here’s a clue for you, Butters — 2016.
In what seems to me a bizarre ruling, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Salinasv. Texas that if you simply refuse to answer a question, that silence can be held against you at trial. You can’t simply remain silent, you have to expressly invoke your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
It seems to me that if you refuse to answer, a prosecutor should not be able to use that against you before a judge or jury. You shouldn’t have to say some “magic words” to receive your Fifth Amendment rights.
By a 7-2 vote (Alito and Thomas dissenting), the Supreme Court struck down Arizona’s law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote in a federal election. They held that the 1993 National Voter Registration Act trumps the more restrictive state law. The federal law requires that you show I. D. like a driver’s license and sign a statement that you are a citizen.
The ruling will strike down similar laws in Georgia, Alabama, and Kansas.