Trump Justice Department will not prosecute Lois Lerner


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Surprise, surprise! The Trump administration has decided that it will not consider prosecuting Lois Lerner for her harassment of conservative organizations when she worked for the IRS.

More and more, I think that this prediction of a Trump presidency, made in February 2016, will accurately portray most of the policies he achieves. This quote is especially clairvoyant:

The Senate and House remained strongly Republican, but they seemed to learn nothing. The promised repeal and replacement of Obamacare slipped from a Day One priority to a Day 90 priority to a “Somewhere down the road” priority. Trump also half-heartedly tried to build a wall, but then gave up, explaining, “Well, Mexico refuses to pay for it and we shouldn’t have to.” It was not long before Trump began to “grow in office,” and soon he was explaining how, “We really need these people here, these illegal people to do the dirty jobs Americans just won’t do. We need them and it would kill our economy if we stopped it.” He soon signed a comprehensive immigration law legalizing the millions of illegals already here and expanding legal immigration; there were no firm border security provisions in the bill. When confronted by a Fox News reporter at a news conference about this flip-flop, Trump responded, “That’s a very, very rude and stupid question coming from you. The voters, they understand you have to compromise and make deals and we’ve made a very strong deal. You are probably saying this because it is that time of the month and you women say crazy things then.”

He decided not to repudiate the Iran deal, claiming, “It seems to have been going very well.” The Iranians detonated a nuclear warhead in December 2017. Vladimir Putin sent his armored divisions into unoccupied Ukraine and reintegrated the country into Russia. President Trump called it, “Very disturbing, very scary, but it’s their internal business. It’s not our business, so we are staying out of it.” Trump’s 45% tariff on Chinese goods died in the House of Representatives, but only after Republicans beat back a coalition of Democrats and a few Trump-leaning Republicans.

Trump allied himself with Democrats frequently in a series of “deals” that sometimes passed, sometimes failed. For their part, the Democrats held their fire on President Trump and focused on the GOP Congress. But in the run-up to the 2018 mid-terms, the Democrats leveraged the fact that the economy was not improving and foreign policy fiascos like ISIS’ taking of all of Syria and expanding the caliphate. They turned on Donald Trump with a vengeance and re-took the Senate as well as many House seats.

While Trump does appear to be trying to rein in the out-of-control environmental movement with the federal government, and appears to be appointing good judges, when it comes to the swamp of Washington, do not expect him to drain any of it.

Share

11 comments

  • Max

    When Oral Hatch from Utah had to spend $12 million of his own money to be nominated by his own party (and then spent 2 million more in advertisements to win in the election against the Democrat) he went on KSL in his victory speech and vowed to do everything in his, and his rhino gangs considerable power, to destroy the tea party. His rant went on for a long time, he was very angry. (The tea party had removed Bennett just a few years before, replaced him with Mike Lee)
    If you’re wondering why we can’t prosecute Lois lerner, now you know. It would take down the Republican leadership who now have to pay back the favor Democrats done them with being obstructionist against tromp.

    I have always said there is only one party in this country. The progressive party. It’s us against them.
    There is no other conceivable reason that they’re not taking advantage of the opportunity they been given.
    A wise man once said, “by their fruits you shall know them”. There is no doubt anymore, we know them…

  • pzatchok

    I bet this is more along the line of picking your fights.

    I just can’t find exactly what laws she broke. Rules maybe but laws? And we don’t want this to look like the Hillary fiasco.

  • Orion314

    Still , anyone is better than HRC

  • Phill O

    LL got her highest bonuses from GW Bush?.

    One friend has a non-profit organization with LL’s signature.

  • wayne

    “Lois Lerner tries busting into neighbor’s home to evade questions”
    Jason Mattera 2014
    https://youtu.be/u88vMSbX_xA
    4:04

  • Commodude

    pzatchok, if she broke rules, she broke laws.

    The way our bureaucracy works, the law sets up the structure of the bureaucracy, which then creates rules within the bounds of those laws.

    Break a rule, you’ve broken a law. For instance, the postal service has rules against wearing campaign material for candidates on your official uniform. Those rules are created by the agency acting on its legal requirements found in the Hatch Act, which is the law.

    The derivation of power can be convoluted, however, it exists.

  • ken anthony

    The swamp isn’t going to drain itself. They are very comfortable in their corruption.

    Trump may disappoint and over promise, but he’s not the problem. People like Sessions are the problem. As the recently passed Jerry Pournelle accurately stated, the GOP loved being the party out of power because it made their lies so much more credible.

    The politicians know they depend on donors more than voters and regardless of party they all belong to the same club.

  • Orion314

    Politicians, prostitutes without the sex.

  • Cotour

    Do you all believe that those in the political realm, which Lois Lerner certainly was / is, suffer the same consequences as those who inhabit the pedestrian realm? Because your conversation indicates that you do.

    When you honestly are able to answer that question through the evidence before you, as in this Lerner example, you understand that there are two conversations and essentially realities underway, the pedestrian and the political. The pedestrian is a more black and white objective existence, and the political is more of a subjective malleable existence.

    The objective concepts of fairness and justice serve the pedestrian realm to keep everything organized and civilized, we all must get along and not kill each other. The concepts of subjectively doing what must be done in order that there be functioning government becomes subjectively paramount in the political realm. This is where anything can become justifiable if it is determined that it is essential to survival or agenda related to survival.

    We all watched what Hillary very overtly did, right in your face, what Comey did, right in your face, what Lynch did, right in your face, what Lerner did, right in your face, and we all want “justice”. But that justice will be long in coming or not coming at all and if it does come it will be shaped to give the impression of fairness to the pedestrian realm. Creatively interpreting words and events or “intentions” etc. become the tools of the empowered political class to accomplish what “Must” be done.

  • Edward

    Commodude wrote: “if she broke rules, she broke laws. The way our bureaucracy works, the law sets up the structure of the bureaucracy, which then creates rules within the bounds of those laws.

    This is correct. Rules, regulations, and even executive orders are supposed to be strictly based upon the law and are supposed to be used only as means of enforcing the law, thus breaking a rule is legally considered the same as breaking the law that it enforces. They are not supposed to be created willy nilly to satisfy the bureaucracy’s — or a president’s — desires.

    Any rule, regulation, or executive order that is not based upon a specific law or that breaks a law (e.g. the DACA executive order) is legally invalid. The bureaucracy may enforce it, but it is unconstitutional.

  • Max

    As a follow-up to my above comment, it was announced today in Utah that if oral hatch decides not to run for reelection (in which he is given poor odds of winning) mitt Romney will run in his place with over 60% chance becoming Utahs newest senator. We’ve all heard enough to know that he really really really hates Trump!
    Bona fide card-carrying member of the “good old boy club”, RINO with style division.

    Report: Romney preparing Senate run if Hatch doesn’t seek re-election
    https://www.ksl.com/?sid=45762166

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *