Althouse: "They called me back to testify on the IRS ‘scandal,’ and I too[k] the 5th again because they had been so evil and dishonest in my lawyer’s dealings with them."

August 13, 2015

"They called me back to testify on the IRS ‘scandal,’ and I too[k] the 5th again because they had been so evil and dishonest in my lawyer’s dealings with them."

Said Lois Lerner, in email.

80 comments:

tim maguire said...: Right, she's chosen not to self incriminate, not because she's guilty, but because they were mean to her lawyer. That sounds to me like a waiver since she's denying the foundation of the claim.; 8/13/15, 1:00 PM
Ann Althouse said...: My guess is she's fully familiar with how they can find something to use against you if they really want to because that's what her IRS was doing looking to deny exemptions to Tea Partiers.; 8/13/15, 1:12 PM
Gahrie said...: Lois Lerner should be wearing an orange jumpsuit in jail.; 8/13/15, 1:15 PM
F said...: Lois Lerner really is like a bad penny that keeps coming back. Can we just put her in jail already and get on to other stuff?; 8/13/15, 1:15 PM
Gahrie said...: My guess is she's fully familiar with how they can find something to use against you if they really want to because that's what her IRS was doing looking to deny exemptions to Tea Partiers.

So under this logic, anyone and everyone can and should plead the fifth?; 8/13/15, 1:15 PM
Jim in St Louis said...: This horrible woman is perfectly within her rights to claim the constitutional protection against self-incrimination.
……wait a sec. Is this the Hillary comment thread?; 8/13/15, 1:18 PM
traditionalguy said...: She is a criminal who made the IRStapo into a criminal army loyal Tom our Kenyan
Godfather. That is how the KGB started out .; 8/13/15, 1:19 PM
Sebastian said...: She sure sounds like a fair, reasonable, and nonpartisan public servant, just the sort of person who would render impartial judgment on any politically sensitive tax matters that might come before her.; 8/13/15, 1:27 PM
DanTheMan said...: She used the IRS against people she didn't like, which make her something of an authority on evil and dishonset.
Dan; 8/13/15, 1:28 PM
Meade said...: She’s a registered Democrat, but her lawyer, Bill Taylor of Zuckerman Spaeder, said people should “consider whether being a registered member of one political party should disqualify people for government service, and if so, who would we get to run the government?”

May be a stupid answer but if activist partisan liars are disqualified for government service, shouldn't that leave us with non-partisan bureaucrats who don't lie? Honestly, Bill Taylor of Zuckerman Spaeder, do you even know what "so evil and dishonest" means?; 8/13/15, 1:31 PM
buwaya said...: "Lois Lerner really is like a bad penny that keeps coming back. Can we just put her in jail already and get on to other stuff?"

Because the trail does not end with Lerner. She was working under instructions from her chain of command, however informally, with a probable ultimate source in the White House.; 8/13/15, 1:33 PM
Eric the Fruit Bat said...: Looking at that photo of Ms Lerner makes me wonder if maybe the problem with that haircut in Klute (1971) was that Jane Fonda had unattractive ears they wanted to hide.; 8/13/15, 1:33 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: If Mattress Girl or Lena Dunham eventually went to law school and rose through the Dem ranks to become a 65-year old IRS Commissioner -- you'd get Lois Lerner.; 8/13/15, 1:35 PM
Mr Wibble said...: She’s a registered Democrat, but her lawyer, Bill Taylor of Zuckerman Spaeder, said people should “consider whether being a registered member of one political party should disqualify people for government service, and if so, who would we get to run the government?”

Gee, does being a member of one political party qualify you for harassement by government beaurecrats? That's the question we're trying to get answered, but she just keeps refusing to answer it.; 8/13/15, 1:39 PM
H said...: Gahrie at 1:15 responds to aa: "So under this logic, anyone and everyone can and should plead the fifth?"

That's certainly the lesson I took away from the Scooter Libby case (Valerie Plame, remember?). At least anyone and everyone with some political visibility.; 8/13/15, 1:40 PM
Original Mike said...: She’s a registered Democrat, but her lawyer, Bill Taylor of Zuckerman Spaeder, said people should “consider whether being a registered member of one political party should disqualify people for government service, "

Unless you're a political appointee, yes, it should.; 8/13/15, 1:45 PM
mikee said...: I for one applaud Ms. Lerner's use of constitutional rights.

I hope in future she remembers they apply to the rest of us, as well.; 8/13/15, 1:46 PM
MikeR said...: "They called me back to testify on the IRS ‘scandal,’ and I too[k] the 5th again because they had been so evil and dishonest in my lawyer’s dealings with them." Actually, I think I agree with her on this one. I thought the part where they sent armed police to go through her house at 3am and told her she couldn't contact a lawyer or tell anyone that it had happened - well, I just thought that was out of bounds.; 8/13/15, 1:56 PM
Todd said...: mikee said...
I for one applaud Ms. Lerner's use of constitutional rights.

I hope in future she remembers they apply to the rest of us, as well.

8/13/15, 1:46 PM

LOL Good one! She will remember that she got away with it, that is what she will remember.; 8/13/15, 1:57 PM
Sammy Finkelman said...: These were not truly private e-mails.; 8/13/15, 2:09 PM
Barry Dauphin said...: Well, maybe she's hoping for immunity to provide testimony that will hurt higher ups. Having said that, it is really quite something that she and Koskinen come off as such entitled jerks.; 8/13/15, 2:11 PM
Gusty Winds said...: OK this might be naïve, but other than the military (and they are really in another category) is there any bureaucratic agency stuffed with registered Republicans?; 8/13/15, 2:19 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: She is so arrogant she must know she is untouchable [I wonder who can she bring down?]; 8/13/15, 2:32 PM
Original Mike said...: "Well, maybe she's hoping for immunity to provide testimony that will hurt higher ups."

I find it hard to believe it hasn't been tentatively offered to her, but you don't want to grant immunity unless you know she's going to come clean.; 8/13/15, 2:33 PM
damikesc said...: We need to retroactively remove all pensions for people guilty of crimes while in office and then go to town on her.

Fuck that bitch. And kill the Natl Treasury Employees Union. A total cancer.

She’s a registered Democrat, but her lawyer, Bill Taylor of Zuckerman Spaeder, said people should “consider whether being a registered member of one political party should disqualify people for government service, "

The better question is, after what she did has become public, should we use the tar or feathers first?; 8/13/15, 2:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Gahrie at 1:15 responds to aa: "So under this logic, anyone and everyone can and should plead the fifth?"

That's certainly the lesson I took away from the Scooter Libby case (Valerie Plame, remember?)

You guys must be pretty young. Ronald Reagan taught most of us that lesson (tho, his "I don't recall" was even better than just "I plead the 5th") way back when he was in the White House.; 8/13/15, 2:37 PM
Achilles said...: Gusty Winds said...
"OK this might be naïve, but other than the military (and they are really in another category) is there any bureaucratic agency stuffed with registered Republicans?"

Do people who believe in freedom and small government tend to seek employment in the government? No. Generally you get the progressive snobs who like to tell other people what to do and look down on people. Similar tendencies in the average police force.

The army is different because it is the only institution in the government that actually brings freedom and security to other people.; 8/13/15, 2:39 PM
damikesc said...: The army is different because it is the only institution in the government that actually brings freedom and security to other people.

And it's higher ups are becoming Progressives as well. Heck, Clinton had inept boob Wesley Clark as the top dog, for God's sake.; 8/13/15, 2:43 PM
Birkel said...: Republicans think Democrats are wrong.
Democrats think Republicans are evil.

Lois Lerner thinks her inquisitors are evil.
Q.E.D.; 8/13/15, 2:47 PM
damikesc said...: We need Congress to pass the Lois Lerner law.

"If you have to plead the Fifth in an oversight hearing on your job, then you forfeit your pension".

...because to plead the Fifth, you have to risk incriminating yourself in a crime if you do not.

Fine. No jail time...but no pension, either. Those 20-30 years you worked? Man, that was a waste, wasn't it?; 8/13/15, 2:48 PM
Brando said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/13/15, 3:02 PM
David Begley said...: Lerner hasn't been charged with any crime is because the Obama DOJ is responsible for filing charges and, if it did, she would rat out who gave her the orders.; 8/13/15, 3:14 PM
Original Mike said...: "Lerner hasn't been charged with any crime is because the Obama DOJ is responsible for filing charges and, if it did, she would rat out who gave her the orders."

Yep.; 8/13/15, 3:17 PM
Steve M. Galbraith said...: The White House didn't need to tell her and her underlings to sic the IRS on these groups. They did that all on their own.

It is so clear that they did this, that they went after these groups for political reasons.

The problem is that there won't be any direct orders, any paper trail. It was just the way things were done, a wink and a node, an assumption.; 8/13/15, 3:22 PM
Known Unknown said...: Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever.; 8/13/15, 3:33 PM
furious_a said...: Didn't Ms. Lerner waive her 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination when she went under oath in her first testimony and stated she'd done nothing wrong *before* citing her 5th Amendment rights?; 8/13/15, 3:34 PM
Quaestor said...: Of course Obama's Justice Department will do nothing, mainly because if it did Lerner will reveal who asked her to de-fund the Tea Party.

The first order of business of the next POTUS (man, I'm slipping into that despicable social media ergot...)

The first order of business of the next Administration, which I hope will be Republican, whether Trump, Scott, Carly, whomever, must be s series of high profile prosecutions. It's been traditional that the incoming President should ignore the transgressions of the previous Administration, but Obama and his minions have been egregious in their tyrannical stewardship of this republic. Heads must roll pour encourager les autres.; 8/13/15, 3:38 PM
tim in vermont said...: They need to give her immunity. They are not going to win this legally with the DOJ declining the role of law enforcement.; 8/13/15, 3:40 PM
Rick said...: she invoked the Fifth Amendment because they had been “evil and dishonest” and accusing them of “hate mongering.”

Not real strong on self-awareness is she?; 8/13/15, 3:45 PM
Matt Sablan said...: You know, I wonder if her admitting she took the 5th for reasons other than why you're allowed to take the 5th means anything, legally.; 8/13/15, 4:02 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "She used the IRS against people she didn't like."

-- The important part is that it wasn't just people she didn't like. It was people her boss did not like, wanted silenced and joked about turning the IRS loose on.

She took the joke as an order.; 8/13/15, 4:04 PM
Original Mike said...: "They need to give her immunity."

She'd take it, then lie during testimony.; 8/13/15, 4:05 PM
DanTheMan said...: Who here believes that she cooked this whole thing up herself, and that nobody higher up was involved?; 8/13/15, 4:11 PM
tim in vermont said...: Well since the WH is withholding documents they refer to as "equities" relating to this whole mess, I am thinking that the fish rots from the head.; 8/13/15, 4:13 PM
damikesc said...: You know, I wonder if her admitting she took the 5th for reasons other than why you're allowed to take the 5th means anything, legally.

That is an excellent question.

And there will be no paper trail. It only takes a small kernel of a hint for some partisans to just go hog wild.

Which is why a conservative President needs to mass fire employees of most federal agencies and replace them. If courts don't like it, tough.; 8/13/15, 4:14 PM
Matt Sablan said...: Originally, when this was first shaking out, I thought that maybe Lerner just heard the joke about unleashing the IRS on Obama's enemies, and decided "Yeah. Let's do that."

But, the longer this drags out, the more I'm convinced that, no. It wasn't just a joke.; 8/13/15, 4:15 PM
tim in vermont said...: The Obama administration is refusing to publicly release more than 500 documents on the IRS’s targeting of Tea Party groups.

Twenty months after the IRS scandal broke, there are still many unanswered questions about who was spearheading the agency’s scrutiny of conservative-leaning organizations.

The Hill sought access to government documents that might provide a glimpse of the decision-making through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
The Hill asked for 2013 emails and other correspondence between the IRS and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA). The request specifically sought emails from former IRS official Lois Lerner and Treasury officials, including Secretary Jack Lew, while the inspector general was working on its explosive May 2013 report that the IRS used “inappropriate criteria” to review the political activities of tax-exempt groups.; 8/13/15, 4:15 PM
Dan Hossley said...: Lois Lerner has a lot to plead the Fifth about.; 8/13/15, 4:17 PM
Gahrie said...: Which is why a conservative President needs to mass fire employees of most federal agencies and replace them. If courts don't like it, tough

Every political and at will government employee should definitely be fired, and that might be enough to scare the rest of them into behaving.; 8/13/15, 4:19 PM
CWJ said...: SMGalbraith has the gist of it. That's why I find laughable all the posturing that a Republican administration could get tough on bureaucratic overreach. The "nonpartisan" bureaucracy is the actual physical expression of big government. And big government is their "rice bowl." You won't get them to reform themselves, and neither will the courts which are part and parcel to the larger system. How many times has the EPA and this administration been slapped down by the courts only to continue the same behaviour until slapped again? Private entities get fined, jailed, or put out of business. Government agencies get told "stop it, and I really mean it this time or I'll tell you to stop it again."

Unless you actually end entire programs, discontinue entire Departments, or fire entire classes of federal employees, you won't make a dent in bringing the federal colossus under control. The best you can hope is to put a leash on the dog who will bide his time and nurse his grievances until the next Democrat administration let's him off his leash again. But that's just a temporary stop to the ratchet before it clicks ever onward.; 8/13/15, 4:35 PM
D.E. Cloutier said...: Gusty Winds: "OK this might be naive, but other than the military (and they are really in another category) is there any bureaucratic agency stuffed with registered Republicans?"

Not in my experience. And I've spent a lot of time in Washington, DC. In fact, I was born there.

President Bush, President Clinton, another President Bush, President Obama -- it really doesn't matter all that much. Beyond the military, leftist bureaucrats run most of the government. That's one reason why you see very few major changes from one administration to the next.

It's not unusual to see a supposedly nonpartisan government employee walking around with a coffee cup from the Democratic National Committee or some other left-leaning organization.

The people doing research and writing speeches for Republicans in Congress are often Democrats.; 8/13/15, 4:36 PM
Peter said...: It's not as if one can let the legislative or executive branches off the hook here. For decades now, congress has passed and presidents have signed legislation that is baroque in its complexity and deliberately ambiguous in stating exactly what must be done to be in compliance (e.g., "reasonable accommodation must be made ...").

Thus leaving interpretation of what these laws actually mean up to these vast regulatory agencies, with their natural biases toward empire-building, and excessive caution in permitting anyone from doing anything, ever, for any reason. Because if they let you do something and it turned out badly that would make them look bad, but what you couldn't do will never make them look bad because no one will see what might have been because you didn't do it.

And if you the citizen object to doing as regulators wish, well, you can appeal decision ... right back to the same agency that made it in the first place. And on and on it goes. As they say, it's not a bug but a feature, for it insulates legislators from having to take responsibility for government intrusiveness because it's the regulators and not the legislators doing it.

Yet, the legislators surely enabled them to do it.; 8/13/15, 5:10 PM
SteveR said...: Its worse than just a party bias. These folks (and I was in the arena) have job situations well beyond what most people can imagine. It creates, even among those predisposed to conventional conservative thinking, a tendency for reliance on the civil service system and a lack of independent thought. They prefer to get folks just out of college because they are easier to mold for the golden parachute journey.

Voting democrat is normal. If you are an ideologue, its perfect. If you are dishonest, plenty of ways to avoid responsibility.

Not all but that's the way to bet.; 8/13/15, 5:27 PM
David said...: "I'm not political and I hate those fucking Republicans who have screwed up the country so bad that we should split in two and I don't understand why those career agents don't get the politics and refer more right wingers for legal action."; 8/13/15, 5:36 PM
Original Mike said...: @David - Is that a quote from Lerner?; 8/13/15, 5:50 PM
Mark said...: Right, she's chosen not to self incriminate, not because she's guilty, but because they were mean to her lawyer. That sounds to me like a waiver since she's denying the foundation of the claim.

Didn't Ms. Lerner waive her 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination when she went under oath in her first testimony and stated she'd done nothing wrong *before* citing her 5th Amendment rights?

No and no. That's not how it works. First, despite the common nomenclature, it is not a privilege against "self-incrimination," it is a privilege not to be compelled "to be a witness against [your]self." It can be invoked by anyone who is accused or faces prosecution, even the innocent. It is were otherwise, anyone who plead "not guilty" could then be compelled to testify, which would defeat the whole purpose of the privilege.

The waiver of the privilege came not when Lerner stated under oath that she did nothing wrong, but when Lerner made a statement under oath. The content of that statement was irrelevant because having once spoken, she could not then refuse to speak.; 8/13/15, 5:55 PM
Michael K said...: " It was just the way things were done, a wink and a node, an assumption."

I think she may be smarter than that. Accepting a "wink and a nod" for something like this is asking for jail time.

I'll bet she has a letter somewhere safe. I sure would.; 8/13/15, 5:58 PM
great Unknown said...: Re: Michael K

IIRC, a presidential pardon does not affect the crime of contempt of congress.; 8/13/15, 6:10 PM
cold pizza said...: I could get behind a "Clinton/Lerner 2016 for Bedford Hills" ticket. -CP; 8/13/15, 6:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Seems the easy test is measuring any and all forms of equal treatment for all under the law. Something that can be measured and stated as a fact. Where a complaint requires both the courts and congressional action once self-nominated voluntary groups claim they have been discriminated against relative to another voluntary group with regard to political speech, where the group claiming discrimination relative to another group has the right to ask for judiciary relief where the courts use their investigative authorities to document the inequality (under oath) and if it is more than some small amount and/or justified under a cited law that is being properly applied to all, define the relief that must be implemented (either stop a new discriminatory practice, or treat all the groups equally). i.e. in this case perhaps levy fines or contempt of court until the same number of audits and delays exist for all other 501c orgs, including religious bodies, union, pacs, as well as all significant donors, etc. - and for folks of all political persuasions (not just those in or desirous of being in power).

Where actual, demonstrated, and not claimed, equality under the law is all that can preserve the rule of law. Else we’re all lawbreakers, if not felons. Then again in a regulatory state where ignorance is not a valid defense (and jury nullification is considered an usurpation by many) we’re all already felons, minding our tongues just in case we might offend the powerful, of any party. It’s so sad that a country that started out free at least for men of property has slid into this abyss. Perhaps dating back to FDR's time. Another alternative is to go to full out patronage in all government jobs. At least this way voters would have a clear choice, with the majority both responsible and accountable at every election.; 8/13/15, 6:43 PM
chillblaine said...: Psychological projection. It's her defense against the unpleasant possibility that she might have to own her evil deeds. It's her only defense. Unless these unruly civil servants pay a personal price, the shenanigans will only get worse.; 8/13/15, 7:35 PM
Mary Beth said...: In June 2014, Lerner told the same friend that an unflattering picture of her appearing before Congress kept surfacing because “it serves their purposes of hate mongering to continue to use those images.

I wonder which photo it was. There's at least a couple I've seen where she looks arrogant and pissy, but they're AP photos and I don't know why she'd blame the Republicans in Congress for those.; 8/13/15, 7:40 PM
MadisonMan said...: Lerner sounds like a petulant and thin-skinned. Just what you don't want in a bureaucrat.; 8/13/15, 8:21 PM
Birkel said...: Mark just went full idiot. Never go full idiot.

The right is against self-incrimination if you face criminal sanction. The Fifth can only be invoked if criminal prosecution is a possibility. If the Fifth is asserted for another reason, the Fifth does not apply. Therefore, the question Mark believed he was answering remains a good one and Mark's answer is foolish.

Further, once a statement is made to Congress, Congress can make the rules about whether the privilege has been waived. The federal courts are unlikely to intervene in that circumstance if Congress forcefully exerts itself. The question of whether a federal court could intervene is open, at best.

Full. Idiot. Mark.; 8/13/15, 8:40 PM
CWJ said...: MadisonMan,

Agreed. Do you think she is the exception or the face of the bureaucracy?; 8/13/15, 8:44 PM
CWJ said...: MadisonMan,

She did this. Those under her did this, without demure. Multiple offices were involved. No one complained. We only know this because an IG didn't blink.

She IS the face of the bureaucracy, not the exception.; 8/13/15, 8:50 PM
Michael K said...: "The content of that statement was irrelevant because having once spoken, she could not then refuse to speak."

Whaaaat ? The proper usage as I understand it is to say "I refuse to answer on the grounds that..."

You don't give a speech and then claim it.; 8/13/15, 9:26 PM
Paul said...: They were mean to her lawyer?

I could have sworn (no pun intended) the ONLY reason you can claim the 5th is because it might incriminate you. So is she now admitting to perjury?; 8/13/15, 11:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Evil and dishonest government actors? Say it ain't so.

Lerner just needs to keep her mouth shut and run out the clock until January 2017 and wait for a pardon from the president for her service to the cause.; 8/14/15, 12:54 AM
furious_a said...: Matthew Sablan said...

It was people her boss did not like, wanted silenced and joked about turning the IRS loose on.

She took the joke as an order.

Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?; 8/14/15, 2:13 AM
MadisonMan said...: Do you think she is the exception or the face of the bureaucracy?

The Federal employees I work with are all excellent workers and dedicated. Of course, they're also scientists. Lerner is a lawyer.; 8/14/15, 8:10 AM
Birkel said...: cyrus83,
The pardon possibility is problematic if the White House was involved in any way. After all, Lerner would be forced to testify truthfully if she faced no potential criminal sanction.

Think this issue through and you will see a pardon is unlikely.; 8/14/15, 8:47 AM
Qwinn said...: "Lerner is a lawyer."

As have been every Democrat Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate since Carter, excepting only Michael Dukakis' running mate and Al Gore, who wanted to be a lawyer but failed out of school.

The only lawyer on the GOP side in the same time frame was Bob Dole, and he did a dozen *other* things as well.

Just thought I'd point this out, as it seems to get waaaaay too little attention. It may be the single most important political factor in our lifetimes, in my opinion. It's my first response when a LIV trots out the idiotic "both sides are the same" preening pose.; 8/14/15, 9:01 AM
kcom said...: Just keep telling yourself that, sweetie.; 8/14/15, 9:50 AM
Unknown said...: -The problem is that there won't be any direct orders, any paper trail. It was just the way things were done, a wink and a node, an assumption.--

They’ve never found documentation of Hitler’s instructions regarding the Final Solution.; 8/14/15, 9:52 AM
SGT Ted said...: If your membership and participation in a political party makes you unable to uphold your oath of office and unable to perform your job in a fair and impartial manner, then yes, you should be disqualified.; 8/14/15, 10:06 AM
furious_a said...: MadisonMan said...

[..]

The Federal employees I work with are all excellent workers and dedicated. Of course, they're also scientists.

I suspect the level of federal bureaucrats' douche-iness is directly correlated with the degree of control their position accords them over taxpayers. Field/Lab scientists, NTSB investigators, Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen, etc. = righteous. TSA, EPA, Prosecutors, etc. = douche-y.; 8/14/15, 10:11 AM
kcom said...: Scientists, NTSB investigators, soldiers = helpers
TSA, EPA, prosecutors = controllers

Douche-y-ness is drawn toward controlling things.; 8/14/15, 10:40 AM
deepelemblues said...: Like most fascists she has a massive persecution complex it would appear. The Nazis very sincerely believed they were the victims of "the Jews," the Soviets very sincerely believed they were the victims of the domestic and international "plutocracy," etc.; 8/14/15, 11:48 AM
gk1 said...: I have to wonder if Lerner and the other partisans who went on this mission within the IRS wonder if it was all worth it? They only managed to provide a temporary delay to conservative movements, but at what cost? They may have permanently damaged the IRS's ability to survive as an agency and now only enjoy the support of democrats on the hill and even thats hard to drum up these days.; 8/14/15, 10:27 PM