Obama and the IRS’s worst nightmare has come true.  The Judicial Watch lawsuit against the IRS drew Judge Emmit Sullivan.  The name may not be familiar to you, but anyone who tracks his cases can tell you he’s tough but fair.  Fair is the last thing Obama wants.  The IRS ditto.  The IRS will now have to explain to the judge why they did not tell the court the emails were missing.

Now, I know what you are thinking.  It doesn’t matter what the judge does, Obama will ignore him.  Uh uh.  Judge Sullivan does not like people playing games in his court.  He presided over the case of the DOJ vs Sen. Ted Stevens.  When he found out about the prosecutors hiding exculpatory evidence against Stevens, he immediately vacated his conviction, then appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the three prosecutors and the DOJ.

Didn’t know some judges have the power to name a special prosecutor?  They do, but usually they don’t.  Judge Sullivan has and will.  He is livid about the IRS withholding information about the emails.  When Judicial Watch laid out their case and the IRS laid out theirs, everyone expected it to take at least a week if not weeks before the judge would decide to hear the case.  It took him all of two hours and I suspect that included his lunch hour.

The judge may at his discretion appoint a Special Prosecutor with wide ranging powers granted by the judge.  He can order the IRS, the DOJ, and possibly even the White House to cooperate fully.  If they fail to do so, he can summarily put them in jail until they agree to cooperate.  In the case of the three prosecutors, it was determined that two of the prosecutors were responsible but they could not prove intent.  Nonetheless they were both suspended without pay.  One for 15 days and one for 45 days.

He is somewhat limited.  He can not have Obama locked up, but Holder and Koskinen are fair game.  He can force Lerner to testify to the special prosecutor on the missing emails.  She can claim the fifth, but that’s the same as an admission of guilt.  Contrary to Lerner’s statement to the Oversight Committee, the Fifth Amendment is not to protect the innocent, it’s to protect the guilty.  It’s illegal to claim the Fifth to avoid testifying, unless you are withholding self incriminating testimony.

However, Judge Sullivan could rule that since Lerner supposedly answered questions asked by the Justice Department, she is ineligible to claim the Fifth.

Neither the IRS nor the Justice Department can refuse to make witnesses available to the prosecution.  That would be contempt of court.  It would also make Judge Sullivan very angry, and by all accounts, that is not something you want to do.

Judge Sullivan wasted no time setting a date of July 10th to hear the case.  It would not be wise for the IRS to ask for a postponement.  And slipping a coverup past him is like trying to sneak a steak past a pit bull.

 

Read more here

18 comments
Sidney Powell (@SidneyPowell1)
Sidney Powell (@SidneyPowell1)

Read LICENSED TO LIE: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice and my articles at www.Observer.com on the IRS emails and Judge Sullivan. Judge Sullivan is one of the heroes in Licensed to Lie, which reads like a legal thriller but is all true. It tells the human story of the high profile prosecutions that you only thought you understood in the last 10 years.

Master Sergeant R. L. Parker USMC (Ret)
Master Sergeant R. L. Parker USMC (Ret)

The dominoes are lined up; this judge might just be the one to knock the first one over…… July 10th; I am marking my calendar. Might just be the new Independence Day…. :)

Nanette Gray
Nanette Gray

The key words here, if you did not pay attention to what you typed, is, "witness against …", with a strong emphasis on against!

Sue Dodd
Sue Dodd

If this is true about Judge Sullavin I am over joyed. Nothing would please me more than to put the screws to the the Whitehouse, DOJ and the IRS!!!! It istime to stop the blatant disregard for the constitution and the laws.

Brian Bullington
Brian Bullington

Successful criminals stay one step ahead of the law. From this and other recent events, it appears that, in the smallest of degrees, the law may be catching up to Obama and his minions.

MissyT
MissyT

A honest judge...............someone who actually follows the law rather than makes it.....please tell me that is in fact true! Make my day :)

Trisha
Trisha

I guess lets see if he holds up to all this with the Anti-American Administration.

Michael Rice
Michael Rice

10 "silly" votes. I wondered how many Democrats were reading this story.

John
John

I guess Obama will have to change his tune about phony scandals. The President has gotten his way with the media for far to long, we need someone to take that smug smile off his face, hopefully this judge will be the one!

Mr-Sardonicus
Mr-Sardonicus

SOmething is going on and finally an actual Judge will hear the evidence and hopefully do something concrete about it. if they are innocent then they should not ferar the NSa tapping their phones, oops! my mistake. I was thinking of something wholly different. What I meant to say was if they have nothing to hide then they likewise have nothing to fear.

Joyce Wells
Joyce Wells

There is a God, and he is watching over our country. Some have thrown Him under the bus, but in the end He will prevail. Christians, hit your knees tonight and ask the Lord to keep this judge safe, and to aid in his endeavor to find truth and justice, and to prosecute the guilty to the fullest extent of the law.

oldranger7
oldranger7

It is about time someone had the power to do something about the King and his court. They seem to think, "The ends justifies the means", and the congress can't do anything to stop them. Holder will find out that is not true, malfeasance in office is an impeachable offense, is it not?Maybe, if any one of them had ever held a job they could and would do a better job but, I doubt it. They are what they are!

Linda Terhune (@LindaTerhune)
Linda Terhune (@LindaTerhune)

Finally, we have more hope for answers and accountability. I am tired of this president flying around the county claiming "phony scandal" and acting as if the rights of the innocent targeted Americans (and congressmen and reporters) are worthless

Stranded in Sonoma
Stranded in Sonoma

She can claim the fifth, but that’s the same as an admission of guilt. Contrary to Lerner’s statement to the Oversight Committee, the Fifth Amendment is not to protect the innocent, it’s to protect the guilty. It’s illegal to claim the Fifth to avoid testifying, unless you are withholding self incriminating testimony.

The 5th Amendment has NOTHING to do with self incrimination. The relevant text of the amendment is:

No person shall...be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...

The correct way to claim your 5th Amendment right is to say, "I refuse to testify because I am claiming and exercising my fifth amendment right against compulsory self-witness." At that point you SHUT UP and say NOTHING ELSE.

Self incrimination is NOT a blanket; you must respond to each question separately because you are REQUIRED to testify.

However, the 5th amendment right against compulsory self-witness IS as blanket. If YOU are the focus of government prosecution, you can refuse to testify. If someone else is the focus, you must testify if called by either side. If, while testifying, you do not want to implicate yourself in another crime, you take the stand and claim self incrimination NOT the 5th amendment.

We need to stop this silliness that is confusing people about their rights.

Mrs. D
Mrs. D

Thank you for announcing this info. We have been feeling so demoralized about all the bad news lately.

This gives us great hope. We need to praise judges like this in America.

We will be following this, so keep us posted, please. Trey Gowdy has been amazing. I thanked him for all his work.

Trackbacks