Here we go: IRS official Lois Lerner to plead the Fifth at congressional hearing tomorrow

posted at 4:41 pm on May 21, 2013 by Allahpundit

Can’t do better than Popehat’s wry take:

Hey, remember when Steve Miller insisted there’s nothing illegal about the IRS targeting a particular political faction for extra scrutiny? He was wrong, potentially: There are civil-rights laws in play as well as the Hatch Act, plus some of the IRS’s own regulations for employee conduct. Lois Lerner and her lawyer know the score:

Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, won’t answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening – or why she didn’t reveal it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor 3rd.

Lerner was scheduled to appear before the House Oversight committee Wednesday.

“She has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course,” said a letter by Taylor to committee Chairman Darrell E. Issa, R-Calif. The letter, sent Monday, was obtained Tuesday by the Los Angeles Times…

Since Lerner won’t answer questions, Taylor asked that she be excused from appearing, saying that would “have no purpose other than to embarrass or burden her.” There was no immediate word whether the committee will grant her request.

No dice: Darrell Issa’s subpoenaing her anyway, which is precisely the right thing to do. Ask the full slate of questions, many of which will no doubt focus on the endless lies she told when this began two weeks ago, and let her sit there and refuse to answer each one serially on grounds that she might incriminate herself. Let the cable-news viewing public get a good hard dose of that tomorrow and see how it plays. By the way, if you missed Mark Hemingway’s piece yesterday about Lerner’s history at the FEC, correct that now. While there, she went after the Christian Coalition so doggedly (it was ultimately cleared after incurring huge expenses in fighting the agency) that upon hearing she’d moved to the IRS, the group’s lead counsel claims he thought, “Wow, this means the not for profit division is gearing up politically.” And now here we are.

We’re also here, courtesy of Carney’s latest briefing:

Just a day after telling reporters that chief of staff Denis McDonough had learned of the situation about a month ago, press secretary Jay Carney revealed that White House officials had consulted with the IRS on how to initially present to the public the story that the agency had targeted conservative tax-exempt groups for extra scrutiny.

There was “discussion about the possibility of a speech” by Lois Lerner, who oversaw the IRS’s work on tax-exempt groups, Carney said, and conversation about testimony by the acting commissioner of the agency and “what he would say” if asked about the issue…

The press secretary said the Treasury Department worked with Mark Childress, a deputy White House chief of staff.

Day by day, he’s admitting to a bit more White House involvement in stage managing the IG report than he’d previously let on. First he acknowledged that White House counsel had a general heads up on the report in April; then he said Kathryn Ruemmler had been told the key details about targeting conservatives; then he admitted that Ruemmler had told Obama’s chief of staff; now he’s admitting that they chatted with Treasury about how Lerner should go about fake-apologizing to the public. Sure would be nice to hear from her what input she got from Dennis McDonough, but I guess we’ll have to settle for a humiliating pleading o’ the Fifth. And incidentally, is there anyone who still seriously believes that White House senior staff were sufficiently involved in this the past few weeks that they would advise Treasury on how to frame the IG revelations for public consumption, and yet … never once mention it to Obama? Is there any coherent explanation for that apart from deliberately shielding him, even at the expense of keeping him in the dark about key developments in his own administration?

Via the Standard, two lowlights from today’s testimony by former IRS Commission Doug Shulman. He’d like you to know (a) that he’s sad but has nothing to be sorry about, and (b) like everyone else thus far, he simply has no idea who came up with the idea of focusing on conservative groups.



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Shocking! Think I’ll drive by the grave of Claude Rains later.

Del Dolemonte on May 21, 2013 at 4:43 PM

Dude this just got really interesting.

gophergirl on May 21, 2013 at 4:45 PM

As they said over at Ace about this: This sh!t just got real.

NotCoach on May 21, 2013 at 4:45 PM

“She has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course,” said a letter by Taylor to committee Chairman Darrell E. Issa, R-Calif. The letter, sent Monday, was obtained Tuesday by the Los Angeles Times…

You get the presumption of innocence in a court of law, but not the court of public opinion.

rbj on May 21, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Finally! The low-level rogue employee faces justice!

Lily on May 21, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Paying attention to these scandals is like asking for Obama’s Birth certificate, or something.

portlandon on May 21, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Lerner isn’t going to escape the public perceptions of this. As our trolls like to say, “If you have nothing to hide…”

Liam on May 21, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Just wondering what prison I’d be sent to if, when the IRS came calling and asking questions, I decided not to answer?

dirtseller on May 21, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Remember, this is the most transparent administration, evah!

I think we should treat them like they treat legal gun owners–as criminals without a trial.

Kingfisher on May 21, 2013 at 4:47 PM

Looking forward to the “No comment” montage on the evening news.

blammm on May 21, 2013 at 4:47 PM

That’s gotta hurt that “nothing illegal here” storyline the WH has been peddling (with disturbing assistance from some of their lickspittle minions).

natasha333 on May 21, 2013 at 4:47 PM

Oh, snap!

Punchenko on May 21, 2013 at 4:47 PM

The camera time for Lerner will be awesome, pleading the 5th over and over and over, and you know the questions will be interesting.

Bishop on May 21, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Here we go indeed. Although there’s obviously all sorts of legal mumbo jumbo about taking the 5th meaning nothing in terms of guilt or innocence, it’s pretty well established that people who have nothing to hide don’t invoke their right against self-incrimination.

Good call by Issa forcing her to invoke that right, it’s terrible optics for the Administration, and gives the GOP all sorts of cover to keep digging.

LukeinNE on May 21, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Journ-O-list meeting going on right now with Erza Klein and company.

Over / Under of 20 coordinated stories?

tetriskid on May 21, 2013 at 4:48 PM

But, but, but, 2 rogue employees in the Cincinnati office….

I
N
F
U
R
I
A
T
I
N
G

hillsoftx on May 21, 2013 at 4:49 PM

We’re all birthers now.

Lily on May 21, 2013 at 4:49 PM

Because nothing says “innocent” like taking the fifth.

Offer her immunity, and then let’s hear what she has to say.

bofh on May 21, 2013 at 4:49 PM

Good call by Issa forcing her to invoke that right, it’s terrible optics for the Administration, and gives the GOP all sorts of cover to keep digging.

LukeinNE on May 21, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Another instance of Administration obstructionism and stonewalling.

Liam on May 21, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Lerner invokes the fifth, and Jay Carney lets the truth out in dribs and drabs, hoping that the American public won’t get the whole picture and put two and two together. They really do think the public is made up of morons, and considering what they’ve gotten away with so far, I can’t say they’re wrong.

RebeccaH on May 21, 2013 at 4:50 PM

So, the top dogs knew nothing.
The workerbees were just doing as told.
AND …
The middle cog takes the 5th.

Gotcha !!!!

Jabberwock on May 21, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Maybe our legal scholar nonpartisan can explain what the legal ramifications of this will be or is he too busy trying to hack into the Harvard Alumni webportal?

HumpBot Salvation on May 21, 2013 at 4:51 PM

Looks like this administration found an Amendment to the Constitution they’re not yet willing to part with.

EA_MAN on May 21, 2013 at 4:51 PM

If Lerner isn’t talking then other people will have to take the stand, I wonder how many of them will invoke the 5th and really make this circus a circus.

Bishop on May 21, 2013 at 4:52 PM

If she can not answer questions about her job as a government employee she should be terminated immediately.

NotCoach on May 21, 2013 at 4:52 PM

House Committee: Was this or was this not authorized by White House officials!?

Lois Lerner: On advice of counsel, I respectfully assert my Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Democrats: MAKE. IT. STOP! Arrgggh!

Punchenko on May 21, 2013 at 4:52 PM

Troll Free.

portlandon on May 21, 2013 at 4:52 PM

She will probably still be drawing a government paycheck and get bonuses will appearing before Congress….

Just like Hasam kept getting paid after shouting ALLAH AKBAR and killing people to the tune of $278,000…..

That money should go to the victims and there families.

redguy on May 21, 2013 at 4:52 PM

“The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.”

Baraka Obama
August 21, 2010

CycloneCDB on May 21, 2013 at 4:53 PM

We are dealing with a bunch of slimy lawyers here. They may not be good at math but they do know how to game the legal system. Here’s how we fight fire with fire. I demand that Issa and his bunch get Mark Levin on retainer and have him frame all questions and responses. It’s as he has said on his show repeatedly it wasn’t the geniuses up on Capitol Hill who exposed all this, it was Levin and his Landmark Legal Foundation that did all the work. Give the man as much $$$ as he needs and get her expertise on this asap. That’s some tax money I don’t mind spending.

Hang this beo tch!

neyney on May 21, 2013 at 4:53 PM

Flat Tax, fire them all!

Oil Can on May 21, 2013 at 4:53 PM

Crickets from the ACLU.

John the Libertarian on May 21, 2013 at 4:53 PM

SOOOO glad Issa will get all of her claims in the record.
Next time I get audited by the IRS, I’ll pull that outta my hat and expect them to consider ME innocent, too !!
Yeah, that’s the ticket !!

pambi on May 21, 2013 at 4:54 PM

“She has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course,” said a letter by Taylor to committee Chairman Darrell E. Issa, R-Calif. The letter, sent Monday, was obtained Tuesday by the Los Angeles Times…
You get the presumption of innocence in a court of law, but not the court of public opinion.

rbj on May 21, 2013 at 4:46 PM

True.
And in my opinion, currently being made public, she wouldn’t need to plead the 5th if she really had NOT committed any criminal acts.

dentarthurdent on May 21, 2013 at 4:54 PM

By the way, if you missed Mark Hemingway’s piece yesterday about Lerner’s history at the FEC, correct that now. While there, she went after the Christian Coalition so doggedly (it was ultimately cleared after incurring huge expenses in fighting the agency) that upon hearing she’d moved to the IRS, the group’s lead counsel claims he thought, “‘Wow, this means the not for profit division is gearing up politically.”

So then, wouldn’t it make sense that the person who transferred Lerner from the FCC job where she made her bones and reputation, knew exactly what she would do in the new IRS position? Or what I think is more likely, she was moved to the IRS position and told directly to go after conservative ankle biting groups. In which case, I would really like to know who was involved in the job transition decision and how far up the chain those discussions went.

parke on May 21, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Any employee, who takes the Fifth, should either be fired or placed on administrative leave. She CANNOT be left to continue as the head of the Division that is the place where unethical, immoral, unAmerican, and, almost certainly, illegal and unconstitutional behaviour took place.

Resist We Much on May 21, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Nothing screams transparency like pleading the 5th.

antipc on May 21, 2013 at 4:55 PM

If the Obama Administration really wanted to get to the bottom of this, teh AG’s office could offer her immunity for all of her past crimes (except for lying to Congress in her upcoming testimony) and let her testify. Considering the likelihood that the Justice Department will not do anything to Ms. Lerner, it isn’t like we would be losing anything anyway. Of course, we all know the White House isn’t going to let Ms. Lerner testify. Heck, Issa should put that offer out to the DOJ and see what the response is.

Conservative in NOVA on May 21, 2013 at 4:56 PM

I have a feeling something serious is going to happen soon. There hasn’t been a luxury vacation taken all month and it’s already the 3rd week in May.

Signs and portents.

Lily on May 21, 2013 at 4:56 PM

Didn’t I see this in the Congressional Hearings in Godfather II?

kingsjester on May 21, 2013 at 4:57 PM

This should be interesting, if Issa is bold enough to ask.

“Who instructed you to target these groups?”

“I plead the 5th.”

The Rogue Tomato on May 21, 2013 at 4:57 PM

Remember all the libs saying this “faux” scandal would only last a week. Or all the Mobys who warned us not to overplay the scandals.

Question:
THe repubs and dems can’t pass “immigration” while these scandals are blowing up, can they?

BoxHead1 on May 21, 2013 at 4:57 PM

You get the presumption of innocence in a court of law, but not the court of public opinion.

rbj on May 21, 2013 at 4:46 PM

And, even in court, the refusal to testify in your own defence is considered by a jury. The odds of acquittal are higher where the jury has heard directly from the defendant.

Resist We Much on May 21, 2013 at 4:58 PM

They should have stuck with “Uhhhhh duuuuhhhh I don’t know.”

Bishop on May 21, 2013 at 4:58 PM

Never thought I would get the chance to re-live the Nixon Presidency.

Sound of crickets from the Kos Kids and at Zsa Zsa’s site.

But the DUmmies were very vocal about this:

Well done , Ms. Lerner.

She would be insane not to.

I wish the corporate media would just verify that progressive non-profit groups were targeted also.

Ms. Lerner is a GOPer alongwith her hubby.

Anyone know if that last claim is true?

Del Dolemonte on May 21, 2013 at 4:59 PM

Lerner invokes the fifth, and Jay Carney lets the truth out in dribs and drabs, hoping that the American public won’t get the whole picture and put two and two together. They really do think the public is made up of morons, and considering what they’ve gotten away with so far, I can’t say they’re wrong.

RebeccaH on May 21, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Ya – I have to go with that also.
Given that the majority of the voting population put these people in office – I doubt most of them could put 2 and 2 together.
This IS the Idiocracy.

dentarthurdent on May 21, 2013 at 4:59 PM

Um, the 5th only applies to incriminating yourself. Assuming no laws have been broken, how could she possibly be incriminating herself?

She cannot plead the 5th to questions which would incriminate others, such as Obama.

mitchellvii on May 21, 2013 at 4:59 PM

Plead the 5th?

Time for the Grand Jury methinks.

PackerBronco on May 21, 2013 at 4:59 PM

She’s pleading the Fifth.
Scooter and Mooch are drinking it.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave…

kingsjester on May 21, 2013 at 4:59 PM

I can imagine if no one ends up going to jail or with any significant consequences…the new way to climb the ladder of success in liberal land will be to crush conservatives, their supporters and or anyone reporting the actual facts using any means at your disposal, ethical or not.

Lois Lerner will be a glowing text book example for the liberal career minded union member, if she walks away with not only her current job, but with all her bonuses in the bank.

Alinsky on May 21, 2013 at 5:00 PM

So Lois Lerner discovered a section of the Bill of Rights that she likes?

She pleads the Fifth for herself after she denied the First to others!!

I think we have someone who qualifies as one of those domestic enemies of the Constitution.

The Obama administration is corrupt from the top to the bottom.

INC on May 21, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Pleading the 5th = Extremely High Administration official

Who else were perform seppuku for Dear Leader?

portlandon on May 21, 2013 at 5:00 PM

The Banana Republic of America

jnelchef on May 21, 2013 at 5:00 PM

LOL. But remember, she didn’t do anything illegal. Nobody in the Obama administration ever does anything illegal. As Nixon once explained, if the president does it (or directs his minions to do it), it can’t be illegal.

L’etat, c’est Obama.

AZCoyote on May 21, 2013 at 5:00 PM

But taking the Fifth Amendment and refusing to anwer questions before a Congressional committee doesn’t mean she’s incompetent let alone untrustworthy or a criminal, right?

She can still run ObamaCare, right?

novaculus on May 21, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Ask the full slate of questions, many of which will no doubt focus on the endless lies she told when this began two weeks ago, and let her sit there and refuse to answer each one serially on grounds that she might incriminate herself. Let the cable-news viewing public get a good hard dose of that tomorrow and see how it plays.

The committee no doubt will call her to testify, and thus plead the 5th, but they’ll allow her lawyer to speak and he will indicate that her answer to all questions will be the same.

However, I don’t believe Issa or any of the majority will force her to continue replying to questions, serially or otherwise. First, it’s SOP not to do so and, Second … she’s a GUUUUURRRRRRLLL. War on women crap and all.

TXUS on May 21, 2013 at 5:01 PM

This should be interesting, if Issa is bold enough to ask.

“Who instructed you to target these groups?”

“I plead the 5th.”

The Rogue Tomato on May 21, 2013 at 4:57 PM

Would the Fifth apply in that instance? You can’t be made to incriminate yourself, but the Fifth doesn’t protect third parties.

Liam on May 21, 2013 at 5:01 PM

Because nothing says “innocent” like taking the fifth.

Offer her immunity, and then let’s hear what she has to say.

bofh on May 21, 2013 at 4:49 PM

NO!!!

why protect her from any criminal prosecution?? unless she has testimony that incriminates higher ups there is no reason to immunize her.

chasdal on May 21, 2013 at 5:01 PM

Um, the 5th only applies to incriminating yourself. Assuming no laws have been broken, how could she possibly be incriminating herself?

She cannot plead the 5th to questions which would incriminate others, such as Obama.

mitchellvii on May 21, 2013 at 4:59 PM

Valid point. HOWEVER – even if she was ordered by Obumble to order agents to do something illegal, she is still guilty of the illegal order herself.

dentarthurdent on May 21, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Paying attention to these scandals is like asking for Obama’s Birth certificate, or something.

portlandon on May 21, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Racist.

/

kim roy on May 21, 2013 at 5:02 PM

someone should start a Twitter feed …#questionsforlyinglois….

hillsoftx on May 21, 2013 at 5:02 PM

So then, wouldn’t it make sense that the person who transferred Lerner from the FCC job where she made her bones and reputation, knew exactly what she would do in the new IRS position? Or what I think is more likely, she was moved to the IRS position and told directly to go after conservative ankle biting groups. In which case, I would really like to know who was involved in the job transition decision and how far up the chain those discussions went.

parke on May 21, 2013 at 4:55 PM

They are all Obama. The genius of the Jarrett presidency has been to insert “self-actuating” agents for change into countless positions of authority, scattered widely throughout the burocracy. They don’t need orders from the WH, they just need to be themselves. They all know what to do. The hive mind is strong.

bofh on May 21, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Sorry, Mr. Baucas, all your outrage (since you decided to retire) is too little, too late.

PattyJ on May 21, 2013 at 5:03 PM

After trampling the Bill of Rights in her judgment of others I think she’s waived her right to invoke it for herself.

INC on May 21, 2013 at 5:03 PM

18 USC § 1001 – Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

(a)2) and (c)(2) are most applicable.

I have a question, too: What purpose is served by having government employees take this oath,

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Dusty on May 21, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Because nothing says “innocent” like taking the fifth.

Offer her immunity, and then let’s hear what she has to say.

bofh on May 21, 2013 at 4:49 PM

NO!!!

why protect her from any criminal prosecution?? unless she has testimony that incriminates higher ups there is no reason to immunize her.

chasdal on May 21, 2013 at 5:01 PM

Sorry. I worded it badly. Immunity isn’t offered until the witness has “off the record” indicated exactly what they will testify to, and it appears to be of sufficient value.

bofh on May 21, 2013 at 5:04 PM

Nice!

So she’s going to plead the 5th?

Then probably drink a 5th…you go Girl!

ToddPA on May 21, 2013 at 5:04 PM

tetriskid on May 21, 2013 at 4:48 PM

THIS NEEDS TO BE A HEADLINE ON DRUDGE, BREITBART, HERE ON HOTAIR, EVERYWHERE!!!

The MSM are getting their talking points from the WH as we speak.

I wonder how much of this is going on?
Obama: Hey you all know how much dirt I’ve dug up about your tax returns in the last few years. It would be a shame if that somehow leaked out wouldn’t it? Why your careers would be toast right?

MSM-Yes sir!

Obama: ok so here are your talking points for tomorrow….

neyney on May 21, 2013 at 5:04 PM

sh!t status: Real

ted c on May 21, 2013 at 5:04 PM

I like these threads. They tend to stay troll free because even the trolls can’t defend this crap.

That being said, if I were Lerner I’d be pleading the Fifth too. It’s good legal advice not to incriminate yourself and the tale she told about a couple of rogue employees acting on their own to what we know now has been quite the slow painful journey.

What I find most amusing is that employees recall Lerner constantly talking about not doing anything that you can’t defend in front of the cameras at a Congressional hearing. I guess she left out the part where the defense begins “upon the advice of counsel I respectfully plead….”

Happy Nomad on May 21, 2013 at 5:04 PM

What time tomorrow does this popcorn-fest start? Link? Got to clear the calendar and get my “Pound Sand” poster ready…

hillsoftx on May 21, 2013 at 5:05 PM

Valid point. HOWEVER – even if she was ordered by Obumble to order agents to do something illegal, she is still guilty of the illegal order herself.

dentarthurdent on May 21, 2013 at 5:02 PM

The way that could work, though:

Issa — “Who ordered you to target Conservative groups? The Fifth does not apply.”

Lerner — “Obama”

Issa — “Did you carry out that order?”

Lerner — “I refuse to answer under the Fifth Amendment.”

Liam on May 21, 2013 at 5:05 PM

“Other to embarrass or burden her?”

That’s rich, given that this is exactly what was done to every Tea Party group — and doubtless thousands of conservatives.

matthew8787 on May 21, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Now, this gets real. There needs to be an endless loop of tomorrow’s hearing of this woman refusing to testify for fear of incriminating herself.

blue13326 on May 21, 2013 at 5:06 PM

dentarthurdent on May 21, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Bingo!

annoyinglittletwerp on May 21, 2013 at 5:06 PM

it’s pretty well established that people who have nothing to hide don’t invoke their right against self-incrimination.

LukeinNE on May 21, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Depends on circumstances. I’m not doing much in conversations with LEOs till I have legal representation.

a capella on May 21, 2013 at 5:06 PM

She can still run ObamaCare, right?

novaculus on May 21, 2013 at 5:00 PM

The gal running ObamaCare is another rabid liberal, not Lerner.

Happy Nomad on May 21, 2013 at 5:07 PM

So this administration is really worried about Lois Lerner’s constitutional right’s but James Rosen’s rights, not so much.

Can anyone explain to me what is going to happen to Mr. Rosen? I am very worried.

esr1951 on May 21, 2013 at 5:08 PM

I know nothing about these low-level events…except when I need to plead the 5th or something…

workingclass artist on May 21, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Dusty on May 21, 2013 at 5:03 PM

I don’t know how far down in the hierarchy of a federal department a supposed civil “servant” is required to take an oath of office.

Anyone know?

INC on May 21, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Dang right they ought to make her plead the 5th again and again and . . .

WannabeAnglican on May 21, 2013 at 5:08 PM

When I left grad school to join a CPA firm, I was told failure to keep adequate records was unlawful.
So the Intrusive Revenue Service can cop out and claim they have no records of what stunts they tried to pull?

seven on May 21, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Doug Schulman was a Democratic donor…btw…

workingclass artist on May 21, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Who wants to bet this all started with Rahm? He liked to fashion himself as a tough guy all the way back to the Clinton administration.

Tater Salad on May 21, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Would the Fifth apply in that instance? You can’t be made to incriminate yourself, but the Fifth doesn’t protect third parties.

Liam on May 21, 2013 at 5:01 PM

Yes. If she were to admit that she was instructed to target and name the party(ies) so instructing her, she would potentially be admitting to participation in a crime, a felony, i.e., conspiracy to deprive private citizens of their civil rights under color of law, among others.

Probably why she’s pleading the 5th to begin with.

Of course, the committee could grant her immunity, thus unlocking her tongue, something I’m sure they’re deliberating at the moment.

TXUS on May 21, 2013 at 5:09 PM

next comes an immunity deal and then she will spill her guts….

stay tuned!

reliapundit on May 21, 2013 at 5:10 PM

I can’t believe those no good Republicans are making her take the Fifth!

EA_MAN on May 21, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Who wants to bet this all started with Rahm? He liked to fashion himself as a tough guy all the way back to the Clinton administration.

Tater Salad on May 21, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Tough guy in a Tutu…Not that there’s anything wrong with tutus

*snicker*

workingclass artist on May 21, 2013 at 5:10 PM

How many Wall Streeters went to jail for the charades they were playing with mortgages? Zero.

In fact, our current two previous Democratic SecTreas’s were in the middle of that grand robbery.

My point is that – as outrageous as the IRS scandal is – nothing will come of it.

It’s no longer a govt. for, of and by the people. It’s the ruling class and the rest of us. We are all suckers!

Deafdog on May 21, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Happy Nomad on May 21, 2013 at 5:07 PM

I think Lerner is now running Obamacare.

INC on May 21, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, won’t answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening – or why she didn’t reveal it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor 3rd.

Yet the b1tch gets her salary and benefits ?

burrata on May 21, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Ms. Lerner is a GOPer alongwith her hubby.

Anyone know if that last claim is true?

Del Dolemonte on May 21, 2013 at 4:59 PM

Looking, but I found this:

Embattled IRS official Lois Lerner’s husband’s law firm has strong Obama connections

Resist We Much on May 21, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Note to self … set DVR to CSPAN 3, tmrw.

Paraphrasing Dennis Miller:
If they’d only build all of their stonewalls along the southern border !

pambi on May 21, 2013 at 5:12 PM

What, no Troll defense?

No verby to tell us how harsh we are?

kingsjester on May 21, 2013 at 5:12 PM

busted

cmsinaz on May 21, 2013 at 5:13 PM

It’s the Barnum & Bailey Show — getcher popcorn :)

jersey taxpayer on May 21, 2013 at 5:13 PM

TXUS on May 21, 2013 at 5:09 PM

You may be right, I’m the lawyer around here (neither is NP so you know who is). I guess it depends on how the Amendment works, and how Issa asks the questions. I’m thinking, perhaps wrongly, that she can say if she was given an order but can’t be made to say she carried it out.

Liam on May 21, 2013 at 5:13 PM

Bbbbut this is just a political side show sploded by republicans isn’t it or do I have the wrong sideshow?

workingclass artist on May 21, 2013 at 5:13 PM

NOT the lawyer, that is

Liam on May 21, 2013 at 5:13 PM

“So, a quarter of the 300, we are talking about 75 or so [groups that were targeted]?” NBC News’ Tom Costello asked.

“Um, is that a quarter? That’s correct. Thank you. I’m not good at math!” Lerner responded.

There was a pause, and Costello reminded her, sounding incredulous: “You’re with the IRS.”

“I’m a lawyer, not an accountant,” Lerner explained. (Lerner is head of the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups.)

This is 4th grade math. No competency requirements are needed, I suppose.

INC on May 21, 2013 at 5:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3