Republican Jim Jordan of Ohio, the House Judiciary Committee’s ranking member, claimed on Sunday that throughout the Obama administration’s I.R.S. crisis, Special Counsel Jack Smith looked for opportunities to investigate conservative groups.
Jordan, appearing on Fox Business on Sunday, said that a report he co-authored with Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) in 2014 that examined the I.R.S.’s targeting of conservative tax-exempt companies would add complexity to the Special Counsel inquiry against former President Trump.
After the F.B.I. raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, Attorney General Merrick Garland chose Jack Smith to serve as special counsel to investigate any possible misconduct on Trump’s behalf.
It was speculated, “Guess who was in control at the Justice Department searching for methods to attack and punish the exact persons investigating who Lois Lerner went after?” The recent nomination of Jack Smith as special counsel to President Trump by Merrick Garland.
However, in actuality, Smith contacted Justice Department superiors in September 2010 to discuss a New York Times piece that slammed conservative organizations. The public integrity department, criminal division, was led by Smith at the time.
If you’re interested in reading more about how organizations are being used as a front for direct campaign contributions, check out the front page item from yesterday’s New York Times. This is terrible, and it has me thinking about whether we should file a [18 U.S.C.] 371 conspiracy to violate laws of the United States to stop the abuse of nonprofits to circumvent limits on political contributions. I realize that 501(c)(3)s may be used for good, but what if they are being used in a way they weren’t intended? Sarah Ingram, the I.R.S. Commissioner, is in charge of monitoring organizations like this. We can talk about it tomorrow, but it’s better if we schedule a meeting for this week. Underlined and italicized for emphasis.
The House Republican report then alleges that Smith called a meeting to discuss a “potential 501/campaign finance inquiry.”
Smith has sought communication on a “potential 501/campaign financing probe.”
801 Due to the “shifting legal environment” of campaign financing rules after the Citizens United decision, Smith requested that Pilger set up a meeting between Lerner and the Internal Revenue Service. Foreseeing “the possibility from increased criminality in the… 501(c)(4) sector,” 802 Pilger planned to consult with Lerner about “heightened vigilance.” There are 803 of them. He thought about the “practicalities” of criminally monitoring nonprofit political speech, including whether or not the Internal Revenue Service may probe the donor records of 501(c)(4) groups for potential breaches of campaign-finance legislation. 804 To add insult to injury, the I.R.S. tried to “guide [the Justice Department] through the principal civil rules under [the I.R.S.’s] power and find out what, if anything, they are asking for.” To further ensure that no 6103 fishing is done with non-tax professionals, [Lerner] may also bring in [I.R.S. employee] Joe Urban to define clear limits about tax information.
In a meeting in October of 2010, for instance, attorneys from the Public Integrity section led by Smith “expressed concern that certain 501(c) organizations [conservative organizations] are political committees ‘posing’ as if they are not subject to F.E.C. law,” risking “criminal liability.”
A week ago, former President Trump decided to recuse himself from the special counsel’s probe.