The IRS scandal: Bias & illegality
Newly released emails reveal Lois Lerner, the central figure in the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of conservative groups, expressing personal disdain for conservatives. Not only does it show a bias that IRS officials aren't supposed to have, it's a clear violation of federal law.
Made public by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., the emails were sent by Ms. Lerner to “a personal associate who did not work at the IRS,” The Associated Press reports. Labeling some conservatives “crazies” and worse, the emails show Lerner's “mistreatment of conservative groups was driven by her personal hostility toward conservatives,” Mr. Camp wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder. Camp added that his committee “has not seen any evidence of a serious investigation” by the Justice Department, much less appointment of a special prosecutor by Mr. Holder.
Bryan Preston notes via the PJ Tatler blog that “Lerner wrote the emails on her government-issued BlackBerry device.” The Washington Times says they were sent from her “official IRS email account.” That, plus their content, is ample evidence that Lerner violated the Hatch Act — using her position and federal resources for partisan political activity.
If Justice doesn't act on that evidence to credibly investigate Lerner, it will only prove that the Obama administration perverted the IRS for political gain.
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.
- Benchmarking questions: Fueling perversion
- U.N. Watch: Climate games
- Jesse White’s chutzpah
- Shenango shakedown: Public money at risk
- Those new methane rules: More eco-extremism
- Saturday essay: The thumb itches
- Sunday pops
- The Penn State deal: Focus lost
- The Obama foreign policy ‘model’ imperils the world.
- Piercing the media’s shield: Muzzles & slopes