Information act or they are heavily redacted. This lack of cooperation undermines congresss constitution. This it ministration seems to be saying trust us. There is nothing to see here. But as president reagan said in another context, we should trust but verify. Thats what we are trying to do with our oversight. To our responsibilities, the Natural Resources committee has found troubling examples of this administrations decisions being based on politics rather than law. This includes how conflicts of interest are handled, how the lack of sound science is used in endangered species listings and the mismanagement of the process to rewrite coal regulation. I understand that issuing a subpoena is never the preferred option. And it is unfortunate that i have had to do so in my committee on several occasions. Fully understand that to hold lois lerner in contempt is not one to be taken lightly. But mr. Chairman, it must be taken gven her ongoing refusal to operate with this committees investi
We also know that she a a broken federal law by disclosing sensitive tax return information. We know she was heavily involved in the orchestration and disclosure of the information to the public about inappropriate tactics used by the irs. She wanted to avoid litigation that dean disclosure form because as she put it if it goes to litigation all details are public. I guess he needed. It seemed as though ms. Lerner wish to stay away from litigation to avoid having all details of the issues from the incoming public. These facts lead to one assume that this could be the same motive she used when withholding information from congress. We also know she relied on this committee on numerous accounts. We asked her whether the criteria for evaluating taxexempt applications had changed at any point. Ms. Lerner responded the criteria have not change but it had. In 2012 she told this committee that the information the irs was requesting in letters to conservative taxexempt applicants was not out o
Have the answers it needs from this government. We ask the department of justice to take her to court for targeting these groups and disclosing taxpayer obligations, which is a felony. After going over these steps and the facts, i would like to ask my colleagues across the aisle to tell me how it is that you can argue that we conclude this investigation . Is it because the president says so . Is it because Ranking Member cummings says so . How about attorney generic holder . Is it because there is a piece f evidence absolves her . If this is this strule a waste of time, prove it to us and we can move on. Until then, i recommend to my friends across the aisle quite crying foul. When get to the bottom of this, i hope there will be no one on days. Er side of the i do not find pleasure of holding eric holder in contempt. I do not enjoy holding any federal official in contempt. The situation a loselugse lose situation for all citizen, regardless of political beliefs. It is our job to procee
Deserve to hear those answers. Timehere comes a point in prompt otherthings things. Thatis instance, the idea has, ire rights that one think we have to deal with that first. As i said in my opening about whatit is not is bigger than us. T is bigger than this moment it is bigger than ms. Lerner. It is about generations yet unborn. I think somebody who asked the question, people laughed. It was a series question. People come before this committee in the future, will we have to read them their rights . Will we have to give them a miranda warning . Will we have to tell them that any syllable that is said may be used against them . Think we really have to be careful in the precedent we are setting. There will be disagreements with regard to the law. I have been practicing over 20 years. I had disagreements with lawyers. I remember in law school we would argue cases in the court read one person will look at the same fax and have one opinion. No matter how you look at the facts, the things th
Release by the attorney general. What we are essentially getting here a whole lot of holes filled in about the origins into the investigation into the Trump Campaigns alleged ties to the russian government. Chairman graham says in the release the fisa court was lied to exculpatory information was withheld on those being investigated. And the leadership of the fbi under comey and mccabe was either grossly incompetent or they knowingly allowed tremendous misdeeds. There is a blind eye turned towards any explanation other than the Trump Campaign was colluding with foreign powers. In these documents are Interview Transcripts from 11 government officials who worked on the russia probe as it launch you had. Interviewees talk about cambridge professor stephon halper and fbi confidential source who was in contact with Trump Campaign aides carter page and george paparazzi. One former doj Intel Committee says this about the fisa courts decision to launch surveillance operations targeting page in