Posted on 05/24/2013 10:52:59 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Via Andrew Stiles, no wonder the IRS wants her out.
Now that she’s gone quiet, we can’t know what her defense would be to the ACLJ’s charges. But I can guess.
We now know through her own testimony and from the Inspector General’s report that Lerner was briefed about this unlawful targeting scheme in June 2011. But nine months later, beginning in March 2012, she sent cover letters to many of our clients – demanding additional information and forwarding intrusive questionnaires. In fact, in March and April of 2012, Lerner sent 15 letters to 15 different clients (including those who were approved after lengthy delays and those who are still pending).
This letter dated March 16, 2012 sent to the Ohio Liberty Council is representative of the other letters that Lerner sent to our clients. This letter, posted here, was sent on letterhead out of the IRS office in Cincinnati. The cover letter bears Lerner’s signature, who runs the Exempt Organizations division out of the Washington, DC office. It includes more invasive and improper questions about membership of the group and demands information about all public events conducted or planned for the future. And it specifically requested information about the organization’s website, Facebook page, and other social media outlets…
In addition to the letter sent to the Ohio Liberty Council, our records indicate that Lerner sent 14 other letters to 14 of our clients in the March-April 2012 timeframe. It’s unclear why her name appears on letters to some organizations, and not others. But one thing is clear: this correspondence shows her direct involvement in the scheme. Further, sending a letter from the top person in the IRS Exempt Organizations division to a small Tea Party group also underscores the intimidation used in this targeting ploy.
According to the ACLJ, not only did tea-party groups continue to get intrusive requests after Lerner first found out about the targeting in June 2011, they continued to get requests after May 2012, when the IRS ostensibly changed the criteria for investigating 501(c)(4) groups to something more politically neutral. The latest letter cited by the ACLJ (but not signed by Lerner) was dated … May 6, 2013, just four days before Lerner’s orchestrated public mea culpa on behalf of the agency for targeting conservatives.
What possible defenses could she have to signing the cover letters? An obvious one, and a hallmark of Hopenchange crisis management, is to plead negligence to rebut the charge of intentional wrongdoing. She’ll say yes, she learned about the tea-party targeting in 2011, but she didn’t pay attention to the cover letters and signed them as a batch without scrutinizing the contents whenever her underlings needed her to. The letters to tea-partiers were mixed in with letters to nonpolitical nonprofits and, well, oops! Obama’s spent the past two weeks pleading ignorance of everything that’s going on in his administration as a defense to the IRS scandal, the DOJ’s pursuit of reporters, and even Benghazi. (O never knew about the repeated requests for more security there, he says.) Copping to being a terrible, disengaged manager rather than a willfully corrupt schemer is working out well for him so far. Why wouldn’t it work for Lerner?
The other obvious defense is to claim that the questions asked of tea-party groups in the later correspondence like the March 16, 2012 letter signed by Lerner or the very recent May 6, 2013 letter posted by the ACLJ don’t go beyond what the IRS is allowed to ask of 501(c)(4) groups under normal circumstances. They’re intrusive but, she could argue, they’re not improperly intrusive. Here’s what the IG report cited as questions that crossed the line:
Put Lerner back in front of Issa’s committee with her Fifth Amendment privilege waived and she’ll probably say that, apart from obviously inappropriate inquiries like a demand for donor lists, it’s a fine line between intrusiveness and simply vetting an org to make sure that their activities don’t involve “indirect” participation in campaigns. That defense would have the added benefit of earning her a bit of liberal support: They’ve been after the IRS ever since Citizens United to start scrutinizing 501(c)(4)s more closely. “My only mistake was being too zealous in my quest to make sure that our elections remain untainted by ‘dark money’ exploitation of our tax laws” etc etc, she could say. Which is nice, but still doesn’t answer the question of why conservative groups were singled out. Even if most/all of the questions in the later tea-party letters were “properly” intrusive, did liberal groups get the same questions? How closely were they scrutinized vis-a-vis conservatives?
While we’re on the topic of Citizens United and early targeting of righties, don’t miss Kimberley Strassel’s op-ed in the Journal today. This goes beyond the IRS, and it began before the CU decision that the left keeps using as a pretext. Exit quotation: “If the country wants to get to the bottom of the IRS scandal, it must first remember the context for this abuse. That context leads to this White House.”
This is why you start at the bottom with the small fry. When it’s clear that they violated a law, by then offering them immunity, investigators can convince them to divulge information about their bosses. Then proceed on up the chain of command until you run into a higher-up willing to take the fall for those even higher up.
If you get lucky, you get all the way to the top, and we all know who’s at the top of the food chain on these scandals.
And don’t let a special prosecutor from Justice get involved. Keep it in Congress and let the House Republicans keep investigating. That way the news of the extent of these scandals keeps drip, drip, dripping out day by day, instead of being bottled up in an investigator’s office waiting for him to issue a final report.
I'll bet it was Cindy Thomas...no /s ;D
Vote-getting and vote-depressing have been Jarrett's business from way back when her father in law taught her the ropes during the Harold Washington campaign in Chicago.
She knows the business through and through. I think we will see her name begin to pop up in the next few weeks.
I hope so
I never see these people selling out their political party. It's more ingrained than their self. No, Issa will be the one that screws it up if it gets too hot of an issue. Geesh! This is a banana republic. Nothing but a slap on the wrist will be the outcome.
Speaking of Harold Washington compare his death with breitbart
I'll think you'll see a surprising number jump if jail becomes a real possibility.
The Obama administration has been rigid in protecting its own so far; but if there's a sense that it cannot do so anymore...look out.
Democrats are cowards underneath their self-righteous exteriors.
BUMP
See post #14.
Man....we are a blood thirsty group around here....I thought the object of the Issa committee was to ask questions and get some facts...the rest comes later....once they REALLY figure out what was going on....AND I THINK they are a long way from THAT!
bump
We don't know that as yet....except that I would say the Brains of the scheme are much higher up.
I think she might have some useful info,....and you neer kill your info sources on the battlefield if at all possible.( I read that somewhere.)
If Issa wanted to collect “facts” he could have held a hearing 6 months before
the elections.
Because of where she is I’ve been asking if she is a union member or an adversary of the union. Do believe that Kelly not LL will be the key to upper levels
Two roads to the final destination Hope congress investigates both
No letter in the federal government goes out without being read and re-read by several people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.