Representative Dave Camp contributes to the message distortion in NOM v. US (IRS)

National Organization for Marriage lost its case against the Internal Revenue Service in summary judgment. A federal judge, essentially of NOM's choosing (NOM used an employee's address to file in Virginia) dismissed all of NOM's claims. Judge James C. Cacheris, a Reagan nominee, determined that there was no basis in fact for claims of intentional disclosure, gross negligence or unauthorized inspection regarding NOM's 990 filings with confidential donor information. NOM settled for $50,000 in damages caused by an inadvertent disclosure (nothing more than a clerical error).
Enter Representative Dave Camp, Republican from Michigan and True Defender of the Faith™. Camp is also chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee.

Through our investigation, we were able to discover that the IRS gave NOM’s confidential information to an individual who then intentionally leaked the information to the media. The DOJ's refusal to take any action to protect taxpayers demonstrates why this Committee, and the American people, cannot trust their supposed investigation into the IRS targeting, let alone the protection of the constitutional rights of conservatives.  While the Administration prefers to sweep this under the rug, it is time that the American people have a special prosecutor into this matter so the full truth can come out.

Exactly whom does Rep. Camp think should be prosecuted and for what? What is it about the matter that remains unknown? A court was the trier of fact in this matter. According to the judge:

• Andrew Meisel, the person who made the public records request had no way of knowing that some schlep at the IRS would fail to remove the donors from the schedule. He should be prosecuted for forwarding the documents to the Human Rights Campaign? Is that even criminal?
• Wendy Peters, the clerk at the Internal Revenue Service simply forgot to redact the return. As Judge Cacheris noted in his opinion:
  

  The email evidence, deposition testimony, watermark, and entries from SEIN and IDRS compel the conclusion that Peters accidentally forwarded an unredacted copy of NOM ’s 2008 Schedule B in response to Meisel’s request. … NOM has produced no evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude otherwise …

Other than trying to score political points by accusing AG Eric Holder of inattention, what is Camp's point? Or does Camp want to try to prove what NOM was unable to prove and his committee was unable to prove? Can you say grandstanding?

Related articles

• Competing facts emerge in NOM's IRS litigation fizzle
• NOM loses most of IRS suit in summary judgment
• NOM's IRS Case ends with a modest settlement
• NOM tries to turn IRS case loss into a huge victory
• So What's NOM up to with Fred Karger's deposition?
• Just how much money is NOM's chairman taking out of NOM in fees?