May 22, 2013

What it means if the Democrats believe "there will be hell to pay" if there's a special prosecutor in the IRS scandal.

The Washington Times reports:
Rep. Stephen Lynch, Massachusetts Democrat, warned IRS and Treasury Department witnesses before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform not to stonewall congressional efforts to get to the bottom of the scandal.

“We know where that will lead, it will lead to a special prosecutor. … There will be hell to pay if that’s the route that we choose to go down,” he said.
Why will there be "hell to pay"? The Democrats have been saying a few low-level functionaries adopted a misguided policy and the Republicans are playing politics. If they really believe that, they should expect a neutral arbiter to vindicate their version of the story.

So if they think there will be "hell to pay," then I infer: 1. The Democrats' version of the story is itself political spin, 2. It is playing politics to say the Republicans are playing politics, and 3. The neutral arbiter will tell something close to the Republicans' version of the story (in which case Democrats will be deprived of the excuse that the Republicans are playing politics).

36 comments:

Methadras said...

There will be hell to pay because they know it will go right back to Obama and it will hurt their brand and taint Hillary in the process even more.

Matthew Sablan said...

Hell and White is the name of the law firm.

Bob Ellison said...

4. There are much bigger shoes yet to drop.

Ann Althouse said...

"Hell to Pay" was the title of the book Barbara Olson wrote about Hillary Clinton.

buwaya said...

A not so political take on it is that a special prosecutor will likely find cause to file criminal charges, unlike Congress.

traditionalguy said...

He instinctively knows that if the american people are forced into seeing what Obama and his Gang has been doing to their country, that even the emergency stock of 1.4 billion rounds of Home Land Security ammunition may not be enough to save them.

Paul Zrimsek said...

He may have been referring to Steven Miller's "hell toupee".

SteveR said...

You would think by now they would have got the blame story ironed out. They've had plenty or time to prepare on this one.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Seriously, since it was in a context of warning the witnesses to cooperate, I would guess he meant there will be hell to pay for them if they don't.

n.n said...

They are threatening American citizens and anyone else who would offer us comfort. I envision that they will commit acts of political, economic, legal, and emotional extortion in their petty pursuit of retributive change.

In other words the same old policies: disenfranchisement, exploitation of differentials and gradients, denigration of individual dignity, devaluation of human life, and a progressive devaluation of capital and labor.

Well, at least that was their response after the last special prosecutor, when Bill betrayed Hillary, his office, and the American people. The Left is a vindictive regime. The 20th and 21st century have streets, and toilets, littered with the consequences of their unbridled ambitions.

ricpic said...

What do we need a Special Prosecutor for when we've got that paragon of virtue at Justice, Eric!

Bob Ellison said...

I asked someone today whether Obama was like Nixon, and he said, "He's more like Chavez."

Nonapod said...

I take it to mean that an ambitious special prosecutor could dig up all sorts of stuff that may not even be directly related to this particular scandal but could put the IRS and/or the Administration and/or the Democrats in an even worse light. Even if there's know retrievable connection between these "low level functionaries" and political creatures higher up the food chain, there could be lots of crud that pops to the surface if that pot is stirred.

SteveR said...

Well we remember how the long search for billing records ended up.

Scott M said...

The Democrats have been saying a few low-level functionaries adopted a misguided policy and the Republicans are playing politics.

Yes, but this is the same administration that blamed the attack on our consulate and the deaths of four of our people on a youtube video.

cokaygne said...

Don't agree with Rush on much. I think he is a racist. He is right, however, in saying that the Republicans will make a mistake if they go after 0bama on this. The issue, according to Rush, and I agree, is that these scandals demonstrate the threat of big government. They discredit the whole liberal agenda.

Over and over again they need to say, "Now that we know this about the IRS, do you want them to be in charge of your health care?"

If they go after 0bama, especially with a special prosecutor, as they did with Clinton, they will get the same results. What morons the Republicans are!

Yu-Ain Gonnano said...

A charitable take is that the process of a special prosecutor's search will be destructive regardless of the outcome.

Henry said...

I'd like to think that a Democrat in Congress was actually worried about congressional prerogatives.

But who was he warning of hell to pay? IRS and Treasury Department witnesses. He's telling the low-level witnesses that it is they who will be paying the price. All of them know that the person who paid the price for the Valerie Plame incident was Scooter Libby -- not Richard Armitage. They all know that the person who paid the price for Whitewater was Susan McDougal -- not President Clinton. Lynch is saying that once we bring in a special prosecutor, everyone's a target.

In a way Lynch is inviting the marks -- I mean witnesses -- to play a kind of reverse Spanish Prisoner con game. There's a Spanish Prisoner who can reward you for your troubles, but he needs to get free of a minor legal difficulty first. If you help him get out of this difficulty, everyone will be fine.

Once a witness accepts some culpability, the con game is off and running. That is helpful, the mark is told, but you need to be more forthcoming. If you'll only accept a little more blame everything will be fine.

edutcher said...

Word is there is far worse to come and a lot of senior Demos know it.

Most of these scandals for those who haven't noticed, originated in attempts to swing the election.

In fact, there was a story some in the WH were "terrified" about something Choom knows.

There's also this quote from James Taranto -

The history books should record Obama’s re-election with an asterisk to indicate that it was achieved with the help of illicit means. . .

damikesc said...

Special prosecutors are normally terrible ideas (anything involving the government's first priority is to justify and extend its existence).

But I don't see an alternative here.

But pointing out that the government is so large that nobody controls it and nobody is responsible for anything is the epitome of tyranny by bureaucracy is a needed thing as well.

creeley23 said...

Special prosecutors for thee, but not for me.

Democrats are utter hypocrites. Is there any other conclusion one can reach based on their behavior?

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Lerner's lawyer tried to get a little too cute with that opening statement. That lying bitch is getting hauled back in front of the hearing.

Perhaps sitting in jail for contempt will loosen her tongue?

Carl said...

It means the Democrats would need to throw a lot more footsoldiers under the bus to protect the poll ratings of El Supremo. Lynch is just warning his serfs -- Federal employees -- that if they don't start toeing the line, they might end up on the refuse heap.

Of course, like any good gang leader, he isn't going to be so crass as to say exactly what he wants. You just have to figure it out. If you do, you live to collect another fat government check. If not...well, good, we need a few dumb ones to throw to the wolves.

He may also be apologizing in advance to those who might be on the Designated Goat list. Listen, it's nothing personal. If we didn't stab you in the back, ANYTHING might happen. We might lost the Senate next year. The President might lose face! It's just your turn to take one for the team, fella.

Big Mike said...

I infer (4) Democrats will go even more deeply into payback mode. Which is scary since one can infer that we haven't already been paying Hell for implementing Democrat policies since 2006.

Lem said...

I don't know...

I was for a special prosecutor before I was against it.

I've though a little about it and the idea of a guy doing things in secret is not only unappealingly undemocratic... secrecy, and all the shenanigans surrounding it, is the mothers... formula (that was close) at the heart of most government corruption.

I also like hearings... the swearing in... the politics... the attempts at levity that sometimes bomb... the spinning/lying that sometimes bomb... everything. It allows us access to body language, details that you never going to get from a 500 page report.

There is also the exorbitant cost of a prosecutor and staffs and... remember how the democrats tried to make something out how much it cost to have Starr investigating sex?

Lets keep the hearing... subpoena everybody, even Bo... the dog.

Leland said...

Why infer? We already know several Democrats wrote letters to the IRS to conduct a review of 501c4. A Special Prosecutor would have to be blind not to figure out where the IRS EO department received direction for their project to review 501c4,5,6 organization.

The issue is Dems just thought it was cool rhetoric to spin up the base. They likely did not believe that they were using the power of government to squelch the speech of citizens in a way similar to the King's Stamp Tax.

Hammond X Gritzkofe said...

The issue, according to Rush, and I agree, is that these scandals demonstrate the threat of big government.

Exactly. Republicans and Democrats both, for different reasons, complain about abuse of power in government.

The obvious answer is the Libertarian one - to furnish government with less power, and retain more for our individual selves.

Along with that, let's insist that our laws apply equally to all. E.G. a simple flat tax; no 'green' subsidies; no farm program, no ...

Original Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Original Mike said...

"The Democrats have been saying a few low-level functionaries adopted a misguided policy and the Republicans are playing politics."

There's no way they could know this, this early in the game. It's just wishful thinking on their part.

Crunchy Frog said...

I asked someone today whether Obama was like Nixon, and he said, "He's more like Chavez."

Juan Peron.

Sam L. said...

The sound of a man who fears the worst, with reason to fear the worst.

mariner said...

It means Democrats will treat any such prosecutor even worse than they treated Ken Starr.

Gene said...

Lynch is playing the race card. He believes that those people who were ready to riot if Obama lost the election will now be double plus ready to riot if Obama is impeached.

Zach said...

A special prosecutor might be useful after the full extent of the scandal has been mapped out, but isn't the right move now.

As soon as you appoint a prosecutor, the pressure dies down. People stop talking, they lawyer up, they delay. Starr took years and years and years to do anything, and never made much progress on Whitewater. Appointing a prosecutor delays the fallout until after the 2014 elections, and there's time for plenty of dirty tricks and spin before then.

The IRS scandal has both political and criminal dimensions, and both sides need to be explored. First you expose the scandal while people are interested. You prosecute the criminals only after the full dimensions of the scandal have been explored.

Bruce Hayden said...

I wouldn't worry about Obama and impeachment here. At least so far, it appears that his immediate staff went to great lengths to keep him in the dark on this. He seemingly has a lot of documented plausible deniability here.

Of course, that means that he wasn't doing his job, but what is new there? And that won't get him impeached.

Bruce Hayden said...

I wouldn't worry about Obama and impeachment here. At least so far, it appears that his immediate staff went to great lengths to keep him in the dark on this. He seemingly has a lot of documented plausible deniability here.

Of course, that means that he wasn't doing his job, but what is new there? And that won't get him impeached.