Appointment of Special Counsel to Investigate Internal Revenue Service
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. JORDAN. I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for yielding and for all of his good work.
Mr. Speaker, the gen tle lady from Texas said in her opening statement that there has been no conclusion to the investigation. Yes, there has, and Ms. Lerner knows it.
Why do you think Ms. Lerner is willing to sit down with the Justice Department and answer their questions? She knows the fix is in. She knows it has already been prejudged and decided.
When the Department of Justice leaks to The Wall Street Journal that no one is going to be referred for prosecution, she knows she is just fine. The investigation is over. They are not doing it.
When the President, who is the highest elected official in this land, goes on national television and says there is nothing there, not even a smidgen, Ms. Lerner knows the fix is in.
Let's review the facts with a quick timeline. On May 10 of last year, Ms. Lerner goes in front of a bar association group here in town and, with a planted question, tells that group and tells the whole country that conservative groups were targeted for exercising their First Amendment free speech rights.
She did that before the inspector general's report was made public. It is unprecedented what she did, not only in her actions, but in her spilling the beans before the report was issued.
On May 13, we get the report from the inspector general that says, in fact, the targeting of conservative groups did take place at the IRS.
On May 14 of last year, the Attorney General launches a criminal investigation and says that what took place was outrageous and unacceptable, and the President
of the United States says that what took place was inexcusable.
In June of last year, in the Judiciary Committee, we had then-FBI Director Mueller in front of the committee, and we asked him three simple questions: Who is the lead agent? How many agents have you assigned to the case? Have you talked to any of the victims?
This was a month into this. This was the biggest story in the country at the time, and the FBI Director's response was: I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.
There were seven written inquiries to Justice, asking: Can you tell us some basics about the investigation? Who is, in fact, leading it? Is it truly Barbara Bosserman, as we believe?
Everyone tells us--the witnesses we have interviewed: she is leading the investigation.
How many agents have you assigned? There were seven different inquiries with no responses from the Department of Justice.
On January 13 of this year, as I said earlier, the FBI leaks to The Wall Street Journal that no one is going to be referred for prosecution.
In February, the President says no corruption, not even a smidgen; then we learned Barbara Bosserman, a maxed-out contributor to the President's campaign, was leading the investigation.
Now, take that fact pattern, and apply it to the elements that the Attorney General looks at when you are deciding if you are going to have a special prosecutor. The chairman pointed out, in his opening statement, three elements the Code of Federal Regulations requires for the AG to appoint a special counsel.
It is when he determines these three things:
One, that a criminal investigation of a person or of a matter is warranted; of course, it is warranted. The AG already said it was. This is a big matter. This is a violation of people's First Amendment rights, and the Ways and Means Committee has already said Ms. Bosserman should be referred for prosecution.
The second element, that the investigation by the United States Attorneys' Office or by the litigating division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department; if we don't have a conflict of interest here, I don't know where we do.
The President has prejudged the outcome, the FBI has leaked to The Wall Street Journal that no one is going to be prosecuted, prejudging the outcome, and the lead investigator is a maxed-out contributor to the DNC and to the President's campaign.
Finally, the third element, that it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside special counsel; frankly, I would think the Attorney General would want this.
There are all kinds of Americans who think this thing is not being done in an impartial and fair manner. I would think the Attorney General would want to pick someone who is above reproach, that he would want to pick someone whom everyone agrees is going to do a fair job.
Why have this cloud hanging over the investigation that the person leading it gave $6,750 to the President's campaign? That is all this asks.
This should be something that the administration should want to do because it clears up, in people's minds all across this country, that we are going to get to the truth and that we are going to have a real investigation.
Never forget what took place here. This is so important. People's most fundamental right--your right to speak out and the First Amendment right to speak out against your government--was targeted.
That is why we need to get to the truth, and that is why we need a special counsel who will do a real investigation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source