Loretta Lynch: Abuse of prosecutorial discretion and evasion of duty

Prosecutorial discretion was first described to me thus:

If a police officer catches ten people speeding, and the traffic court has the resources to prosecute only five, then those five who were most egregiously in violation of the speed limit will be prosecuted.  The discretion is guided by a consideration, in this case by the limit of resources of the traffic court.

At the very worst, in the IRS Lerner case, we have a public servant using her position at a federal agency to impede the efforts of a political party to which she and the administration were opposed, and engaged against, in a national election.  And at the very worst, these actions swayed the national election results.

Loretta Lynch, Obama’s appointed attorney general, admitted that Lois Lerner was protected by prosecutorial discretion.

“I believe that in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, the matter was handled and was resolved,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch told the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday morning.

Lynch continued,

Our review found that the management of the process by which tax-exempt applications were handled at the IRS was characterized by mismanagement and inefficiency in numerous circumstances.

May we ask Attorney General Lynch, “What guided the discretion used in the decision to not proceed with prosecution?  Mismanagement and inefficiencies directed at specific political opponents ceases to be frivolous or random.” 

The working definition of prosecutorial discretion in this case seems to be as follows:

Prosecutorial discretion refers to the fact that under American law, government prosecuting attorneys have nearly absolute powers. A prosecuting attorney has power on various matters including those relating to choosing whether or not to bring criminal charges, deciding the nature of charges, plea bargaining and sentence recommendation. This discretion of the prosecuting attorney is called prosecutorial discretion.

As we know, Lerner refused to testify.  Documents were not provided.  Communications between the IRS and then-AG Eric Holder were not provided.

Darrell Issa was adamant in his retort to Lynch’s assertion.

Per the Federal Statute:

Whenever a witness summoned as mentioned in section 192 of this title fails to appear to testify or fails to produce any books, papers, rec­ords, or documents, as required, or whenever any witness so summoned refuses to answer any question pertinent to the subject under inquiry… it shall be [the U.S. attorney’s duty] to bring the matter before the grand jury[.]

“Shall be the duty.”  Lynch has no power, no right to use discretion to shun her responsibilities of office.  On her part, it is a failure of duty and a breach of her oath.  Lynch’s duty seems to lie elsewhere, as did Holder’s.

Therefore, we are entitled to speculate, for we have been deprived the mechanics of truth discovery.

The speculation is thus.  We have a federal agency (IRS) hamstringing the efforts of the opposing party in an election year, the prosecution of which is short-circuited by a nebulous discretion, applied by an attorney general in violation of a federal statute, a person so appointed by the candidate who prevailed in the election in question over that opposing party so harmed by the abuses of said agency.

Why have an attorney general?  Slow-playing the Hillary document release, directing immigration officials to shirk their duties, suing states that assist in the implementation of federal law, fomenting racial frictions, refusing to appoint special prosecutors, and using undefined discretion to inhibit the discovery of truth are all curious activities for the alleged top legal official in the nation.

Serving at the pleasure of the president takes on a new meaning.  Apparently, that is why we have attorneys general.

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com