Grant immunity to gay activist Matthew Meisel and catch the IRS leaker

Of all of the outrages perpetrated by the IRS, one of the most felonious was the leaking of confidential donor information from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) to groups opposed to it.  The IRS has already admitted culpability for the violation and $50,000 to NOM, but has not identified the person criminally responsible for this violation.

However, the identity of the recipient of the leak is known: he is Matthew Meisel, a Boston area gay activist, who refuses to identify the person who leaked to him, taking the Fifth Amendment, just like Lois Lerner.

The Department of Justice is refusing to grant immunity to Meisel, effectively stonewalling prosecution of the IRS leaker. Seth McLaughlin in the Washington Times:

NOM chairman John Eastman said Wednesday that the Justice Department is stonewalling attempts to figure out whether the Internal Revenue Service leak, which improperly included a list of the group’s donors, was intentional.

He said officials have declined to offer immunity to Matthew Meisel, a Boston-based gay rights activist who received the illegally released donor list after submitting a request for the group’s tax return and who has invoked his right against self-incrimination. NOM says granting him immunity from prosecution would help find out how he got the donor list.

“We asked the Department of Justice to grant him immunity and he had asked the Department of Justice to grant him immunity and the Department of Justice refused,” Mr. Eastman told The Washington Times. “So why would you not grant immunity if you have already determined not to prosecute the guy?”

Mr. Eastman said that is a “huge red flag that there is likely something more to uncover here.”
I am no expert on the matter, but it seems to me that one or more House Committees (Ways and Means, or Investigations, for instance) could subpoena Mr. Meisel and grant him immunity, forcing him to anm,e the IRS leaker.

Perhaps Eric Holder’s DoJ would refuse to prosecute the person or persons he names, or alternatively, if he doesn’t testify, for contempt of Congress. But at least that would make it clear that the Obama administration is protecting IRS employees who break the law.

Of all of the outrages perpetrated by the IRS, one of the most felonious was the leaking of confidential donor information from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) to groups opposed to it.  The IRS has already admitted culpability for the violation and $50,000 to NOM, but has not identified the person criminally responsible for this violation.

However, the identity of the recipient of the leak is known: he is Matthew Meisel, a Boston area gay activist, who refuses to identify the person who leaked to him, taking the Fifth Amendment, just like Lois Lerner.

The Department of Justice is refusing to grant immunity to Meisel, effectively stonewalling prosecution of the IRS leaker. Seth McLaughlin in the Washington Times:

NOM chairman John Eastman said Wednesday that the Justice Department is stonewalling attempts to figure out whether the Internal Revenue Service leak, which improperly included a list of the group’s donors, was intentional.

He said officials have declined to offer immunity to Matthew Meisel, a Boston-based gay rights activist who received the illegally released donor list after submitting a request for the group’s tax return and who has invoked his right against self-incrimination. NOM says granting him immunity from prosecution would help find out how he got the donor list.

“We asked the Department of Justice to grant him immunity and he had asked the Department of Justice to grant him immunity and the Department of Justice refused,” Mr. Eastman told The Washington Times. “So why would you not grant immunity if you have already determined not to prosecute the guy?”

Mr. Eastman said that is a “huge red flag that there is likely something more to uncover here.”
I am no expert on the matter, but it seems to me that one or more House Committees (Ways and Means, or Investigations, for instance) could subpoena Mr. Meisel and grant him immunity, forcing him to anm,e the IRS leaker.

Perhaps Eric Holder’s DoJ would refuse to prosecute the person or persons he names, or alternatively, if he doesn’t testify, for contempt of Congress. But at least that would make it clear that the Obama administration is protecting IRS employees who break the law.

RECENT VIDEOS