Appointment of Obama Supporter to Oversee DOJ Probe of IRS Targeting Scheme "Troubling" and "Serious Conflict of Interest" | American Center for Law and Justice
  Search  |  Login  |  Register

ACLJ Profile Completion

Verified

Obama Appointment Troubling

By Jay Sekulow1389286089000

The selection of a political supporter of President Obama to head-up the Justice Department’s criminal investigation of the IRS targeting scheme is "troubling" and "creates a serious conflict of interest." 

A report reveals that the DOJ appointee to oversee the criminal probe financially supported President Obama in his two campaigns as well as the Democratic Party.

“This is a troubling development that raises serious questions about the integrity of the investigation by the Justice Department,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. “The Obama Administration has promised to get to the bottom of the IRS scandal. But appointing an avowed political supporter of President Obama to head-up the Justice Department probe is not only disturbing but puts politics right in the middle of what is supposed to be an independent investigation to determine who is responsible for the Obama Administration's unlawful targeting of conservative and tea party groups because of their political beliefs. This development creates a serious conflict of interest and raises more questions and doubts about the Obama Administration's promise to get to the bottom of what happened - to reveal the facts and the truth about the IRS targeting scheme.”

In October 2013, the ACLJ expanded its federal suit, filing a second amended lawsuit in federal court in Washington, D.C. – adding additional defendants – including top IRS political appointees – an additional claim – and evidence that reveals a politically-motivated attack on conservative organizations by the IRS – a secret and illegal targeting campaign – aimed at the organizations because of their political beliefs.

The ACLJ argues that President Obama – along with Congressional Democrats – created a climate of hostility toward Tea Party and conservative groups – making it impossible for the ACLJ’s clients to exercise their First Amendment freedoms. The ACLJ contends that the hostile climate set the stage for the unprecedented illegal targeting by the IRS. 

The ACLJ represents 41 organizations in 22 states. Of the 41 groups, 22 organizations received tax-exempt status after lengthy delays, 12 are still pending, 5 withdrew applications because of frustration with the IRS process, and 2 had their files closed by the IRS after refusing to answer the unconstitutional requests for more information. 

The 81-page amended lawsuit is posted here. An Executive Summary of the amended complaint is posted here.

Latest in
Free Speech

Big Tech Censorship and Bias – What Do We Do About It?

By Craig Parshall1591794000000

On May 28th, 2020 President Donald Trump released his Executive Order (“EO”) titled, “Preventing Online Censorship.” In releasing the full text of the EO, mainstream media outlets like NBC news were quick to criticize the Presidential order, characterizing it as just a “response to Twitter,” which...

read more

Leftist Doxing of Conservatives and the First Amendment

By Laura Hernandez1570115343105

Last week, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) filed an amicus brief in two related cases, Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFP) v. Becerra and Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) v. Becerra. Both cases began in California when the Attorney General required all charities to submit lists of...

read more

ACLJ Cues Up Free Speech Case for Supreme Court

By Walter M. Weber1534795413681

Today the ACLJ filed a reply in support of our request that the Supreme Court hear an important free speech case, Keister v. Bell . At stake in the case is the freedom of people to speak on sidewalks along public streets. I wrote about this case when we filed our petition in early July. Since then,

read more

A Blow to Big Labor & A Win For Free Speech

By ACLJ.org1530801653531

For decades public sector employees have been forced to subsidize public sector unions and their political and ideological agenda. No more. In a major victory for free speech and free association, the Supreme Court has just struck down requirements that force public sector employees to pay fees to...

read more