It’s time for “The Lerner Rule”

posted at 4:01 pm on June 22, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

Last month I seemed to anger some of my regular correspondents when I asked why IRS worker Lois Lerner was able to employ the 5th Amendment in the way she had. I was bothered by the way she seemed to be benefiting from the “best of both worlds” in terms of dancing around the law while apparently flaunting the national interests her job would require her to support. I suppose the lawyers in the crowd have made their case well enough for now, but rather than dragging her into court, how about if we just fire her? That could be the result if a new proposed rule is put in place.

Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks has sponsored legislation that would make refusing to testify in front of Congress a firable offense for federal workers, The Hill reported Thursday

The legislation is nicknamed the “Lerner” bill, after Director of IRS Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner, who plead the Fifth Amendment in front of a House committee on May 22 about her role in the IRS’s targeting of tax-exempt tea party groups.

Lerner infuriated GOP members of the House by first stating that “I have not done anything wrong,” before pleading the Fifth, leading South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy to argue that Lerner waived her rights by delivering that short statement. California Rep. Darrell Issa later agreed with Gowdy.

Here’s the wording of the applicable portion of the rule:

“Any federal employee who refuses to answer questions in a congressional hearing after being granted immunity shall be terminated from employment.”

I know some of the usual list of suspects will claim that this is just another way to deprive somebody of their constitutional rights, but I can’t see how this applies here. We’re not talking about prosecuting somebody in court, but rather terminating their employment for failure to fulfill their duties. And as a reminder, Lerner is still sitting home collecting a full, fat paycheck on your dime. The proposed rules have some other offerings as well, which might snag a few bigger fish beyond Ms. Lerner.

“If three-fourths of the congressional body to whom the testimony was given finds that a Federal employee willfully or knowingly gave false testimony in a congressional hearing, then such employee shall be terminated from employment.”

The Daily Caller points out James Clapper as a possible fish to be caught in that particular net, but I can’t help but think of a few more names. Eric Holder, anyone? Susan Rice? I might suggest Hillary, but you can’t really fire somebody who is already retired. Of course, we could be treading out onto some thin ice here. If we start passing rules saying that anyone in Washington, DC who is caught lying has to be fired, would there be anyone left in the Capital?

Wait… for a moment there I starting thinking that might be a bad thing. Clearly I need more coffee.


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


They should be fired and their pension should be returned to the taxpayers from whence it came.

HopeHeFails on June 22, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Why punish her for helping Obama inflict his “vision?”

I’m confused…we elect kings don’t we?

harlekwin15 on June 22, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Darn it! Nothing can be done to any of these snakes with a law passed after the fact.
It may make some of the next crop think twice.

countrybumpkin on June 22, 2013 at 4:10 PM

She shoulda been clapped in irons as soon as she pulled her li’l stunt.

You can’t make an exculpatory opening statement then claim the 5th!

Akzed on June 22, 2013 at 4:12 PM

“Any federal employee who refuses to answer questions in a congressional hearing after being granted immunity shall be terminated from employment.”

When was Lerner granted immunity?

steebo77 on June 22, 2013 at 4:22 PM

Issa said that he was going to CALL HER BACK when he was told something that HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN:

She VIOLATED and GAVE UP her right to “Take The Fifth” by Giving a Speech BEFORE she took it……

ISSA LIED!!!!!!!

Why hasn’t this woman been FROG MARCHED BACK in front of Congress and FORCED to testify in HANDCUFFS, if necessary?

AND – she STILL works and GIVES ORDERES at the IRS!!

FIRE ISSA!!!!

williamg on June 22, 2013 at 4:22 PM

Congress’s saying who can and can’t work for the executive branch may raise separation of powers problems. Presidents will certainly oppose it on that ground.

PersonFromPorlock on June 22, 2013 at 4:27 PM

I thought that Issa came out of the ether after hearing from Rep. Gowdy
And stated she was going to be recalled without 5th amendment rights.

Didn’t he say that the next day, or am I wrong again?

FOWG1 on June 22, 2013 at 4:28 PM

if this were 100 years ago……

jukin3 on June 22, 2013 at 4:32 PM

You know I’m not a big fan of corrupt bureaucrats but there ought not to be a law that singles out a particular group. Plus there is a difference between lying under oath a exercising your right to remain silent. Regardless, it’s a bad law.

OliverB on June 22, 2013 at 4:34 PM

terminating

…unterminate the twerp !

KOOLAID2 on June 22, 2013 at 4:35 PM

Good rant, william!

dbrhmccrtr on June 22, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Maybe we could make a rule that you can get fired whenever we feel like it. I know that’s how every job I’ve ever had worked.

Ronnie on June 22, 2013 at 4:47 PM

Sorry I don’t get it. The Government will spend million going after Gibson Guitar, Killing 80 men woman and children in Waco Tx. BUT the will not terminate an employee because the employee may not like it and sue for their job. Let them! Then they have to speak on their own behave in open court or except the termination. What is the administration afraid of?

jpcpt03 on June 22, 2013 at 4:51 PM

Wait… for a moment there I starting thinking that might be a bad thing. Clearly I need more coffee.

Ha! Clearly!

jersey taxpayer on June 22, 2013 at 4:52 PM

Doubtfully constitutional. The legislative branch does not have the power to fire employees of the executive branch. It’s up to the President to set the rules of conduct and of termination for his employees.

PackerBronco on June 22, 2013 at 4:52 PM

On a day where I just received a notice from the IRS for an intent to seize my property for a 2010 total tax bill that was paid already, you can imagine my thoughts on the subject.

I know these people are human. But do they have no responsibility whatsoever to double-check their own Eff-ups?

Is anyone responsible for anything anymore?

oldroy on June 22, 2013 at 4:53 PM

…James Clapper as a possible fish to be caught in that particular net, but I can’t help but think of a few more names. Eric Holder, anyone? Susan Rice? I might suggest Hillary, but you can’t really fire somebody who is already retired.

As it stands, none of these would be firable under this bill as written. None of them has been granted immunity, I believe. And I’m not sure you could get the required number of votes for dismissal even if this bill does become a law. But, it sure would be an improvement. Add to it a clause banning them forever from federal service and you’ve got something that might give them pause before offering testimony.

“Any federal employee who refuses to answer questions in a congressional hearing after being granted immunity shall be terminated from employment.”

rogaineguy on June 22, 2013 at 4:55 PM

The Lerner Rule would not have applied to Lerner.

Read the language in the bill:

“Any federal employee who refuses to answer questions in a congressional hearing after being granted immunity shall be terminated from employment.”

Lerner was never granted immunity.

BigAlSouth on June 22, 2013 at 4:56 PM

“Any federal employee who refuses to answer questions in a congressional hearing after being granted immunity shall be terminated from employment.”

No, no Federal employee should be breaking the law. If a Federal employee wishes to use the Fifth Amendment when being questioned about their job performance; they must resign.

Congress has the duty of oversight of the Federal government, a Federal employee taking the 5th is interfering with that duty.

That proposed law is worthless.

patch on June 22, 2013 at 5:04 PM

Grant immunity only to the biggest fish that flips first. Take the rest down and to jail. Have the bastards call a hunger strike. Let them die from their own stupidity.

oldroy on June 22, 2013 at 5:04 PM

Congress needs to get off their duffs and send a message to the Executive branch.

Cut $1 billion dollars from the IRS budget for the next fiscal year that begins on October 1, 2014.

Cut $2 billion dollars from the Treasury for failure to provide oversight of one of their subordinate agencies.

No pay raises for five years for anyone in Treasury.

That should be some attitude adjustment.

patch on June 22, 2013 at 5:07 PM

Has she (possibly) committed a crime?

faraway on June 22, 2013 at 5:15 PM

That proposed law is worthless.

patch on June 22, 2013 at 5:04 PM

That is what I’m saying.

BigAlSouth on June 22, 2013 at 5:15 PM

Why is any Federal employee in a position of power over citizens allowed to be a member of a union that always supports one political party? Gov’t unions need to be eliminated anyway…they support the Democratic party which is a conflict of interest, e.g. teachers unions who support Democrat candidates who give them raises, Cadillac health and retirement plans.

Karmi on June 22, 2013 at 5:17 PM

“…would make refusing to testify in front of Congress a firable offense…”

Blah, blah, blah.

A felony conviction already provides for termination of federal employees.

WHEN. ARE. Lerner., Ingram., et al. GOING. TO. PRISON.??!!

locomotivebreath1901 on June 22, 2013 at 5:18 PM

Firing isn’t near good enough.

I’m sorry, imprisonment isn’t f*cking good enough.

Midas on June 22, 2013 at 5:22 PM

As an involuntary shareholder of her employer, I vote yes.

anuts on June 22, 2013 at 5:26 PM

She should go to prison.

John the Libertarian on June 22, 2013 at 5:28 PM

What’s Lerner’s address? I think we need to pull a taxpayer-version of the illegal immigrant campout on some politicians lawn that just occurred in the last couple of weeks. I’ll bet she’d love to have a few thousand of us in her front yard with signs and bullhorns and such…

Midas on June 22, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Re: legislative / executive branch. I’m sure Congress could draft a law which would make refusing to testify after being given immunity a firing offense – preclude the Executive from spending any funds for salary, benefits, etc. for any employee who does such a thing might work. They would have to define the immunity, though – I suspect it would have to be complete immunity, which Congress should be very wary of granting.

As for Lerner – IMO, Issa botched the politics. My recollection is Lerner’s plan to take the 5th was telegraphed in advance of the hearing. If that was the case, then the starting point should have been “Ms. Lerner, I understand you’re planning on invoking your 5th Amendment rights to refuse to answer questions from this Committee, is that right?” “Yes.” “Very well, Ms. Lerner, you’re excused.”

There is NO WAY Issa should have let her say a word if she wasn’t willing to answer questions about it. if she protested, “I’m sorry, Ms. Lerner, but we’re not going to let you tell “your story” if you’re not willing to answer our questions – if we wanted a press release from you, we’d have asked for that. You’re execused.”

BD57 on June 22, 2013 at 5:43 PM

This ‘woman’ has been dishing it out to conservatives for 10 years with absolutely no accountability. During that time she has exonerated countless liberals for illegalities and campaign violations. She is a disgrace.

pat on June 22, 2013 at 5:54 PM

Government employee, IRS employee, employee of taxpayers, she shouldn’t have benefit of taking the 5th.

RoyalFlush on June 22, 2013 at 5:56 PM

What’s Lerner’s address? I think we need to pull a taxpayer-version of the illegal immigrant campout on some politicians lawn that just occurred in the last couple of weeks. I’ll bet she’d love to have a few thousand of us in her front yard with signs and bullhorns and such…
Midas on June 22, 2013 at 5:37 PM

And such… Like torches and pitchforks? What’s the PC take on tar-and-feathering chicks? I’m not normally inclined that way, but women’s lib and stuff…

affenhauer on June 22, 2013 at 5:57 PM

A few points of order here:

- As steebo77 noted, Lerner didn’t get immunity.

- One loses the “right to remain silent” once one gets immunity in exchange for testimony. It is, after all, the right to not incriminate oneself, not either the right to not incriminate others or the right to remain silent.

- Unless the liar works for a Pubbie administration, you’ll never get 3/4ths of a committee to say the government drone lied. Plus, its applicability to those who are impeachable is, at best, questionable.

Steve Eggleston on June 22, 2013 at 6:06 PM

So don’t ask her about the IRS, ask her about going after the Christian Coalition when she was with the FEC. The woman is a partisan and has a pattern. She keeps our side from getting their message out and uses our money to do it. She loses in court but she doesn’t care because she has accomplished her goal and has cost the Democrats one red cent, unless you count their taxes and as we know they LOVE to pay taxes.

Cindy Munford on June 22, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Why do we need the Lerner Rule when we have Section 1203 of the Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, which mandates terminations of IRS employees who commit any of what are known in the Service as the “10 Deadly Sins.” Passed in the 19990s after the last major Congressional hearings (Revenue Reform Act of 1998), section 1203 is the neutron bomb that hangs over employees. Violations of 1203 are supposed to be non-negotiable, with termination the only result.

amr on June 22, 2013 at 6:08 PM

affenhauer on June 22, 2013 at 5:57 PM

We don’t need pitchforks, just stage a parade all for her. No need to invade her space, just drop by the neighborhood and say “Hey!”.

Cindy Munford on June 22, 2013 at 6:09 PM

The Daily Caller, for whatever reason, missed the section that would appear to apply to Lerner (section 2, courtesy of The Hill; emphasis in the original):

SEC. 2. CAUSE FOR TERMINATION WITHOUT WAIVER OF IM2
MUNITY.

Any Federal employee who, in a congressional hearing, refuses to answer questions specifically, directly, and narrowly relating to the official duties of such employee, without being required to waive immunity with respect to the use of answers or the fruits thereof in a criminal prosecution of such employee, shall be terminated from employment.

Now that we have the proper section, let the debate begin.

Steve Eggleston on June 22, 2013 at 6:12 PM

People like her need to go to prison. For a long, long time. And they need to lose their pensions. Prison. No pension. That’s the only thing that will stop this kind of criminal corruption.

Rational Thought on June 22, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Someone in Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks district needs to tell him about the 1203 rule in the IRS regs that requires termination for those committing some of the actions revealed.

amr on June 22, 2013 at 6:14 PM

Lousy auto line breaks as a result of copying from a PDF; the start should be (still emphasis in the original):

SEC. 2. CAUSE FOR TERMINATION WITHOUT WAIVER OF IMMUNITY.

Steve Eggleston on June 22, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Why do we need the Lerner Rule when we have Section 1203 of the Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, which mandates terminations of IRS employees who commit any of what are known in the Service as the “10 Deadly Sins.” Passed in the 19990s after the last major Congressional hearings (Revenue Reform Act of 1998), section 1203 is the neutron bomb that hangs over employees. Violations of 1203 are supposed to be non-negotiable, with termination the only result.

amr on June 22, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Because that applies only to IRS drones.

Steve Eggleston on June 22, 2013 at 6:25 PM

Cindy Munford on June 22, 2013 at 6:09 PM

Dunno – I always say ‘when you send a message, make sure there’s no question about what you mean…

affenhauer on June 22, 2013 at 6:30 PM

Fire everyone except Ted Cruz – he is the only real guy in DC with some balls.

redguy on June 22, 2013 at 6:35 PM

This sounds like a “we must do something” reaction that hasn’t been thought through. Not only are there separation of powers issues, and certain laws already on the books – if only the “we must do something” crowd would bother to read them – but there is also the issue of the Federal employees who are Presidential appointees.

There is a huge can of worms under this knee-jerk reaction crap. The left does enough of this sort of blowhard posturing: this feel-goodism stuff because they’re angry that the world doesn’t work their way. That doesn’t make it proper or even laudable. Legislation passed in pique is not going to work anything nearly as expected.

ss396 on June 22, 2013 at 6:37 PM

ss396 on June 22, 2013 at 6:37 PM

DHS and Obamacare come to mind…

affenhauer on June 22, 2013 at 6:40 PM

Doesn’t really matter. President Choom would just immediately hire her as his Parking Meter Tsar or something, at double her previous salary. This is the level of lawlessness in the current administration.

RoadRunner on June 22, 2013 at 6:42 PM

My feeling has always been that if a public official breaks the law, the penalty should be at least triple what it would be for a citizen. We give them the trust of the public along with more power than an average citizen and they betrayed it. Crimes committed by someone that has been given that level of trust and power must be punished harshly. I also agree they should be compelled to give testimony or face prison. No 5th Amendment protection for government officials. For the same reasons I have given above.

free on June 22, 2013 at 6:49 PM

free on June 22, 2013 at 6:49 PM

As much as it pains me to say it, even the corruptocrats should be able to hide behind the Fifth. Of course, I remember reading something this week about how SCOTUS said your silence can be used against you (no link – on an iPhone); should apply here as well…

affenhauer on June 22, 2013 at 6:54 PM

I’ll bet she’d love to have a few thousand of us in her front yard with signs and bullhorns and such…

Midas on June 22, 2013 at 5:37 PM

They know this won’t happen. We are the few left with jobs.

Squiggy on June 22, 2013 at 6:57 PM

Well, if they refuse to testify – they should be fired, but it’s not always going to have the desired effect.

For instance – Lerner is probably eligible for retirement now. You could fire her – but I’m betting some way she’d find a way to collect on that retirement.

My “Lerner Rule” is the DEATH PENALTY.

Any public service employee (and by the way – I kind of am one myself although my job entails being deployed overseas for National Defense) … but any public employee who uses the power of their office in violation of the Constitution and the principles of Democracy – and denies agency to Americans they don’t agree with – should be executed.

Louis Lerner should be taken to court – and if found guilty – EXECUTED.

That is the ONLY way you will stop this sh*t.

HondaV65 on June 22, 2013 at 7:08 PM

Also, ex post facto, anyone? Lerner, Holder, Clapper, Rice…this law would apply to none of them.

James on June 22, 2013 at 7:25 PM

Give it teeth. Take their pensions too.

WryTrvllr on June 22, 2013 at 7:31 PM

As much as it pains me to say it, even the corruptocrats should be able to hide behind the Fifth. Of course, I remember reading something this week about how SCOTUS said your silence can be used against you (no link – on an iPhone); should apply here as well…

affenhauer on June 22, 2013 at 6:54 PM

That would be Salinas v. Texas (SCOTUSblog opinion recap here). In short, one must actively assert the “right of silence” in order to enjoy its protection even in a voluntary, pre-custodial setting.

Steve Eggleston on June 22, 2013 at 7:35 PM

“Above the law” Lerner has to be fired yesterday. Her arrogance and her ill advised attorney need to be fired, as the country, including we taxpayers have had enough. Fire the lady. She does not deserve to be on OUR payroll. Get rid of her. Clear enough?

Amazingoly on June 22, 2013 at 7:40 PM

The rule must also state that not only must the government employee be fired for lying or refusing to testify to Congress, but the firing is not negotiable by any union and that employee can not be re-hired into any position in the US Government. The “new” legislation is as riddled with loopholes for the unscrupulous and political as Jarleberg cheese.

Old Country Boy on June 22, 2013 at 7:45 PM

Sorry, but your wrong about Clapper. He briefed Prism to the Intelligence Committees, thereby satisfying the legal requirement. The fact that Sen Ron Wyden set him up at an open hearing with the clear intent of dodging constituent criticism by exploiting Clapper’s obligation to deny the existence of a classified program at an open session.

I am tired of a bunch of know-nothings smearing a public servant who is charged with keeping secrets to score political points. If a member of Congress truly found Prism to be a gross violation of the Constitution he is under an obligation to rise in the his Chamber an expose the program. The fact that Wyden didn’t do this shows that he was on board with and was just looking to shift blame. Remember, in Washington the guy who screams the loudest knew the longest.

jerryofva on June 22, 2013 at 8:00 PM

No American, NO American, no matter what, can be denied their rights…that’s how it goes…rights are not just for the popular people.

NHElle on June 22, 2013 at 8:28 PM

I’m confused…we elect kings don’t we?

harlekwin15 on June 22, 2013 at 4:05 PM

In 2008 a messiah was elected, if you believe the MSM. This time, merely a king.

In either case, a thwarting of the Constitution that we grew up under–and which many of us swore to protect.

Kevin K. on June 22, 2013 at 9:09 PM

It’s time for “The Lerner Rule”

The way I see it is that the politicians of both parties will NOT go after someone in a high position unless one of two or both things happen:

1. That person causes a major uproar with a sizable plurality of American voters.

2. That person egregiously violated some aspect of their “old boy system”.

Both parties love stuff like this because it does give them some political leverage, but all in all they don’t want to rock the boat too much. Maintaining the status quo and some faith of the American sheeple in the government is paramount to them holding on to their power, and continuing to live the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed.

Dr. ZhivBlago on June 22, 2013 at 9:10 PM

More exciting IRS news:

According to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), in 2011, the IRS sent more than $46 million in tax refunds to 23,994 “unauthorized” alien workers who all listed the same address in Atlanta, GA. The Atlanta address wasn’t the only one that received millions in tax refunds housing thousands; there were actually four addresses in Atlanta and six in other states that were issued anywhere from 1,846 to 23,994 tax refunds each. The TIGTA audit report was published last year at the request of Congress and exposed a problem Washington has been aware of for the better part of a decade.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/06/irs-refunds-tens-of-millions-of-your-tax-dollars-to-illegal-aliens/#ixzz2X04srERk

IlikedAUH2O on June 22, 2013 at 9:54 PM

No American, NO American, no matter what, can be denied their rights…that’s how it goes…rights are not just for the popular people.

NHElle on June 22, 2013 at 8:28 PM

Not quite true.
Members of the US military are denied their first amendment rights as soon as they take their oath. We cannot speak ill of any superior officers in our chain of command. Failure to hold your tongue could result in a court martial.

Lerner works FOR the people of the United States. As her employer we have the right to know what she is doing or has done on behalf of US. If she refuses that right, we should have the right to can her.

Zooid on June 22, 2013 at 10:49 PM

Why hasn’t Lerner been hauled back before Congress to testify since she waived her 5th Amendment right by making an statement of innocence?

Why haven’t the Republicans raised holy hell with this pompous incompetent?

profitsbeard on June 23, 2013 at 2:52 AM

If we had a Republican Congress/President, these bills would be more than just dust being kicked up. But Obama isn’t going to sign a bill that undermines unions.

If you want to get better service from the all powerful and arrogant federal workforce, you have to put penalties like losing benefits into the package dealing with misbehavior.

A thirty year veteran like Lerner can just quit/retire and collect her package forever. In fact, as many in Congress (and their staffs)are doing, she SHOULD retire before Obamacare kicks in by 2014. Those who do keep their Cadillac plans. (She is playing for immunity and time right now. No reason at all to talk. If the Dems get control of the House in 2014, she can go back to work, doing her little misdeeds. Who will stop her? If not, she just retires.)

You want to get their attention- threaten their packages. No retirement, no benefits AND jail time. Remind them they work for us, not the other way around.

That way, the next time a boss tells some low lever G3/4 employee to break the law by being cute, the answer will be “Oh HELL no!”

archer52 on June 23, 2013 at 4:50 AM

“Any federal employee who refuses to answer questions in a congressional hearing after being granted immunity shall be terminated from employment shall be frogmarched out these doors and summarily jailed, and held in contempt of Congress.”

Fixed it for ya, Mo…

PointnClick on June 23, 2013 at 6:09 AM

… who is caught lying has to be fired, would there be anyone left in the Capital?

You presume there is a down side to this? I don’t!

Dr. Dog on June 23, 2013 at 7:31 AM

As a member of the ruling class under Barrack Augustus, her obvious rage at being challenged is certainly understandable. Hope and change requires acceptance of subjugation from the citizenry. Hence the need for “seemingly” large amounts of ammunition and “innocuous” but continuous observations, that in the future such public displays of insolence simply not occur.
She’ll need recompense for this senseless humiliation. God save our master.
Just trying on a pair of progressives size 9 ½. Look shiny enough in the mirror but they really make me feel creepy to walk around in. I don’t know. At this point, I’m just trying to think about my future/weigh my options in this new/very old style world, while simultaneously trying to avoid dying on my knees. There are a limited amount of countries for old men. ‘fact I think this was the last one.

onomo on June 23, 2013 at 7:54 AM

IlikedAUH2O on June 22, 2013 at 9:54 PM

What bothers me about the IRS sending thousands of returns to one address is there is a computer program that “kicks out” such checks for review. Either they caught it and didn’t care, or they ignored it because of the Hispanic surnames.

BigAlSouth on June 23, 2013 at 7:58 AM

The TIGTA audit report was published last year at the request of Congress and exposed a problem Washington has been aware of for the better part of a decade.

IlikedAUH2O on June 22, 2013 at 9:54 PM

BigAL the only “problem” Washington had with the TIGTA audit report was that it was in fact published.

onomo on June 23, 2013 at 8:31 AM

Since Congress seems to be unwilling to police itself when members and presidents openly break the law or directly refuse to enforce it, citizen groups must be allowed to sue to remove these people from office and impose fines and penalties.

RobertMN on June 23, 2013 at 10:24 AM

Lerner is arch-typical, nasty, viciously arrogant, and of course corrupt. The pig has the whole package. Yep, change the rules and go after these low life criminals.

arand on June 23, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Fire them all. I’m okay with that.

RebeccaH on June 23, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Darn it! Nothing can be done to any of these snakes with a law passed after the fact.
It may make some of the next crop think twice.

countrybumpkin on June 22, 2013 at 4:10 PM

There are guys in DC or Chicago that will wack her for some H and a few grand….and she deserves it.
III

dirtengineer on June 23, 2013 at 10:58 AM

What bothers me about the IRS sending thousands of returns to one address is there is a computer program that “kicks out” such checks for review. Either they caught it and didn’t care, or they ignored it because of the Hispanic surnames.

BigAlSouth on June 23, 2013 at 7:58 AM

This the main reason why tax increases must always be off the table. Unless and until these clowns in government (all three branches) act like they care one wit about this country there should be zero talk about increasing revenue of any kind. The amount of money completely wasted is mind boggling.

whbates on June 23, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Perhaps this is a distraction from the main issue, that a government employee, such as Lerner must testify before congress when called.

There should be legal consequences for any government worker that fails to comply. Discipline remains a matter for their management.

virgo on June 23, 2013 at 11:44 PM

‘Lerner Rule’?! Sonds like another d@mn LIBERAL – rather than simply ENFORCING EXISTING LAWS their answer is always to create another rule or pass another law.

Shulman & Miller were CAUGHT perpetrating Felony counts of PERJURY under oath before congress – video tapes of these lies were even repeatedly played – even TO them. WHY HAVEN’T THEY BEEN CHARGED/TRIED/FOULD GUILTY/SENT TO JAIL?

Eric Holder was caught red handed committing 3 Felony Counts of Perjury diring the hearings regarding Fast & Furious. The ONLY reason he is not in jail now & was only Censured (the 1st Atty General in US History to be Censured) by Congress for these crimes is because his own DOJ REFUSED to do their job & prosecute him & because Obama protected him! He perpetrated additional felonies during the hearings regarding the spying on the Press when he declared he knew nothing of it only to find out HE was the one who signed off on it, approving it! WHY HASN’T HE BEEN CHARGED/TRIED/FOULD GUILTY/SENT TO JAIL?

As far as Lerner goes, she arrogantly strode into the hearing’s chamber, after having taken over $700,000 in tax payer funds as salary while overseeing the department that actively engaged in targeting, intimidating, silencing, and even destroying those same Americans whose money paid her salary! She arrogantly spewed her declaration that she did nothing wrong, has nothing to hide, YET claims HER Constitutional Right in her defense. (Funny how she never thought about the Constitution or the Constitutional Rights of those she illegally targeted & punished!) Yes, she should be DRAGGED back before Congress if need be & forced to answer questions.

No ‘Lerner rule’ needs to be created – EXISTING LAW SHOULD BE FOLLOWED & METED OUT AT EVERY LEVEL IN THIS NATION, NOT JUST RELEGATED TO THE ‘LITTLE PEOPLE’ who ARE the UNITED STATES but to our politicians and leaders at the Highest Level of Government in this nation.

easyt65 on June 24, 2013 at 1:08 PM

I’m amazed this isn’t already a grounds for immediate termination.

By refusing to answer questions, Lerner is refusing to do her job. Any employee who refuses to do their job should be terminated immediately.

Any place I’ve worked, an employee refusing to tell the supervisors what they’ve been doing and how would result in immediate termination. The word “insubordination” might be used.

Can you imagine any employee telling an OHSA (or any other review board) they’re “pleading the 5th” and not being terminated or at least demoted?

taznar on June 24, 2013 at 1:52 PM