Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>>> A NEW BOMBSHELL IN THE
SCANDAL OVER THE IRS TARGETING
CONSERVATIVE GROUPS.
THE WATCHDOG GROUP KNOWN AS
JUDICIAL WATCH SAYS FORMER IRS
OFFICIAL LOIS LERNER BROKE THE
LAW WHEN SHE SHARED HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
JOINING US IS KEISHA EVANS.
THE JUDICIAL WATCH FILES THE
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AND
THEY EVENTUALLY GET THEIR
HANDS ON THE DOCUMENTS. IT
TURNS OUT THAT LOIS LERNER WAS
SENT OVER TO THE FEDERAL
ELECTIONS COMMISSION ACCORDING
TO THESE DOCUMENTS NOT JUST A
YES OR NO ON TAX EXEMPT STATUS
FOR THESE TEA PARTY GROUPS,
BUT THEIR ENTIRE TAX FILE.
>> CERTAINLY THAT IS A NO NO
ON THE UNITED STATES CODE.
>> IT IS A CRIME.
>> IT IS A CRIME UNDER 7013.
IT IS PUNISHABLE OF FIVE YEARS
IN JAIL AND A $5,000 FINE.
THIS IS A SERIOUS MATTER.
WILL SHE BE CHARGED WITH A
CRIME?
I SAY A SMALL CHANCE.
>> WHY?
>> THEY DON'T DO IT.
THEY NEVER CHARGE.
>> IT IS NOT ONLY 7013, THERE
IS AN IRS CODE VIOLATION.
LET'S PUT IT UP ON THE SCREEN
HERE.
NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE
UNITED STATES SHOULD DISCLOSE
ANY RETURN OR RETURN
INFORMATION OBTAINED BY HIM OR
HER IN ANY MATTER IN
CONNECTION WITH THE SERVICE.
THAT'S A FELONY AS WELL.
NOW KEISHA, I CAN THINK OF
NEFARIOUS REASONS THAT LOIS
LERNER WOULD HAND OVER THIS
INFORMATION TO THE FEC.
CAN YOU THINK OF ANY
LEGITIMATE ONES ?
>> I CAN'T, BUT I SUSPECT THAT
HER RESPONSE WILL BE WELL IT
WAS ANOTHER GOVERNMENT
AGENCY.
THAT WAS ILLEGAL AS WELL, AND
SHE HAD NO RIGHT.
IT WAS AGAINST THE LAW TO
TURNOVER THE DOCUMENTS.
IT WILL GO FAR IN PROSECUTING
HER.
>> MIGHT THIS BE ONE OF THE
MANY REASONS, DAVID, THAT SHE
INVOKED THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
PRIVILEGE AGAINST
SELF-INCRIMINATION?
>> THAT'S INTERESTING.
SHE INVOKED THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT, BUT BEFORE SHE
INVOKED THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
SHE SAID I DID NOTHING WRONG
AND I AM INNOCENT.
AND THERE IS A SCHOOL OF
THOUGHT THAT SHE WAIVED THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT THERE.
>> WELL, ONE OF THE OTHER
THINGS SHE MAY HAVE DONE IS
THIS.
LET'S PUT THE NEXT FULL SCREEN
UP.
THIS IS PROHIBITED
DISCLOSURE.
THIS IS ABUSE OF OFFICE.
A PUBLIC SERVANT COMMITS AN
OFFENSE WHERE HE INTENTIONALLY
AND KNOWINGLY MISUSES THE
GOVERNMENT PROPERTY SERVICES
PERSONNEL BELONGING TO THE
GOVERNMENT.
IN OTHER WORDS IF YOU USE THE
VAST POWER OF YOUR PARTICULAR
OFFICE AND SHE HAD VAST POWER,
DAVID, THAT'S ABUSE OF YOUR
OFFICE.
THAT'S ALSO A CRIME, IS IT
NOT?
>> IT IS.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT DAVID
AND I SPOKE ABOUT IS WHY WOULD
YOU PUT THIS IN AN E-MAIL?
OBVIOUSLY IT SHOWS WHAT SHE
DID WAS WRONG AND IT IS GOING
TO BE HARD FOR HER TO SAY I
DIDN'T ABUSE MY POWER AS THE
HEAD OF THIS DEPARTMENT, BUT
AGAIN I THINK THAT --
>> WELL WHAT I WAS THINKING
WAS THE ABUSE OF OFFICE IS
TARGETING TEA PARTY GROUPS FOR
POLITICAL PURPOSES. IT IS YET
ANOTHER CRIME.
>> I ALSO READ AN ARTICLE
WHERE THEY STATED THEY LOOKED
AT MORE LIBERAL TYPE GROUPS,
BUT NOT AS MUCH.
I MEAN CLEARLY THESE GROUPS
SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
SCRUTINIZED MORE THAN ANYONE
ELSE.
>> IF YOU TARGET A GROUP FOR
ANY PURPOSE AND YOU USE YOUR
OFFICIAL POWER TO DO SO,
THAT'S A CRIME.
WHEN I STATED SHE WON'T BE
PROSECUTED I THINK SHE SHOULD
BE PROSECUTED.
A STATEMENT HAS TO BE MADE
HERE. YOU CANNOT USE YOUR
OFFICE TO TARGET GROUPS
WHETHER IT IS CONSERVATIVE,
TEA PARTY, LIBERAL OR
ANYTHING.
>> RIGHT, ABSOLUTELY.
>> WHAT ABOUT THIS.
SHE DID TELL CONGRESS
REPEATEDLY DURING THE COURSE
OF A YEAR BEFORE SHE INVOKED
THE FIFTH, NO, I DIDN'T TARGET
TEA PARTY GROUPS.
ISN'T THAT ARGUABLY PERJURY
AND A FALSE STATEMENT AND PUT
FALSE STATEMENT UP?
THIS IS A FELONY AS WELL.
18USC -- WHAT IS THE CODE
SECTION?
>> 1001.
>> LOOK AT THAT.
IF YOU KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY
MAKE A FALSE STATEMENT OR
CONCEAL A FACT IN A WRITING OR
DOCUMENT OR VERBALLY --
>> RIGHT.
AND THE PROOF OF PERJURY IS
EASY.
THE E-MAIL FROM THE ATTORNEY
STATED ON THESE SPECIFIC
GROUPS AND NAMED THE GROUPS.
THAT'S WHAT SHE RESPONDED TO
AND HANDED OVER THE
INFORMATION.
>> THE SEC IS SAYING, YOU KNOW
WHAT, WE WERE JUST LOOKING FOR
PUBLIC INFORMATION.
NOT ALL OF THIS PRIVATE
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
PROTECTED BY LAW, DAVID.
>> AND HAS A GOOD ARGUMENT ON
THEIR PART.
SOME OF THE INFORMATION IS
PUBLIC INFORMATION.
THAT'S NOT THE ACTUAL
INFORMATION. IT IS THE
PRIVATE INFORMATION.
YOU DON'T WANT TO HAND OVER
ENTIRE TAX RETURNS.
THAT'S COMMON SENSE AND THERE
MUST HAVE BEEN AN ALTERIOR
MOTIVE TO DOING SO.
>> BOTH OF YOU ARE LAWYERS.
WHAT IS TAKING SO LONG IN ALL
OF THIS.
SHE INVOKED THE FIFTH.
ARE THEY TRYING TO STRIKE A
DEAL FOR IMMUNITY IN WHICH SHE
CAN PUT THE FINGER OF BLAME ON
SOMEBODY ELSE?
>> I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY
WHAT IS HAPPENING. I MEAN THE
FACT THAT SHE STEPPED DOWN AND
IT HAS TAKEN SO LONG TO ME
INDICATES THAT THEY ARE TRYING
TO FIND OTHER WAYS TO AVOID A
HUGE BLOW UP.
>> IF YOU WERE HER LAWYER YOU
WOULD TRY TO CUT A DEAL.
>> I WOULD.
OBVIOUSLY THAT'S WHAT LAWYERS
DO.
THEY CUT DEALS.
THE LAWYERS WOULD HAVE TO GO
TO THE PROSECUTORS, TO THE
GOVERNMENT TO CUT THIS DEAL. WOS
WHAT IS HAPPENING, BUT WHO
KNOWS, IT COULD BE POLITICS.
>> SHE IS THE POSTER CHILD ARE
TO AT LEAST REPUBLICANS AND A
GREAT MANY OTHER AMERICANS FOR
SOMEBODY WHO ABUSED HER
OFFICE.
CUTTING A DEAL COULD HAVE
REPERCUSSIONS.
>> WHO OF IS REPRESENTING HER
AND WHO IS LOOKING OUT FOR
WHAT HAS HAPPENED THEY WILL
MAKE THE BEST OUTCOME
POSSIBLE.
THAT'S WHAT WE DO AS LAWYERS.
>> THIS UNCONSCIONABLE
BEHAVIOR.
IT IS NOT THAT YOU GAVE THE
TAX RETURNS.
SHE LIED TO CONGRESS.
IT IS A WHOLE GOULOSH OF
VIOLATIONS.
BECAUSE SHE ABUSED THE SYSTEM
SHE SHOULD BE PROSECUTED.
>> SHE IS RETIRED WITH A GOOD