The IRS scandal: Compelling Lerner
Americans still awaiting the full truth about the Obama administration's IRS targeting tea party groups for excessive scrutiny during the 2012 election cycle should applaud House Republicans' efforts to compel testimony from a woman at the center of that scandal.
Lois Lerner retired in September after heading an IRS division that determines groups' tax-exempt status. Last May, during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing, she invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. But she also proclaimed her innocence — and the committee ruled that by doing so, she waived that Fifth Amendment right and left herself open to being compelled to testify.
Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., last week sent Ms. Lerner's lawyer a letter recalling her to testify when he reconvenes that hearing on Wednesday. Mr. Issa wrote that her testimony “remains critical” to his probe of this IRS scandal.
The letter followed House passage of two bills reining in IRS audits and questions about taxpayers' religious and political beliefs. And as the letter was sent, the White House threatened to veto another House bill that would block new IRS rules aimed at 501(c)4 nonprofits involved in politics, including conservative groups.
With the Obama administration still defending the indefensible, recalling Lerner to testify shows that Mr. Issa and his committee aren't backing down in their efforts to document the full extent of politically motivated IRS abuses — which the American people have every right to know.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- A school choice victory: Follow the child
- The student-loan balloon
- U.N. Watch: The Gaza follies
- The visa flap: A prevailing stench
- Sunday pops
- Mon-Yough Laurels & Lances
- Voter ID: A case reaffirmed
- Kittanning Council conundrum: Why disband authority?
- Obama’s amnesty tab: Where credit isn’t due
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- The Box