Va. Dem makes mockery of IRS hearing
WASHINGTON — For the record, the Internal Revenue Service official in charge of implementing a big part of the new health care law tells Congress that she has never knowingly consorted with the devil. And she cannot fly.
Sarah Hall Ingram was testifying before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Wednesday when Rep. Gerald Connolly tried to mock Republican efforts to demonize her. The Virginia Democrat asked Ingram several unorthodox questions about witchcraft as part of the hearing.
Some GOP lawmakers have been hammering Ingram for months because she once headed the IRS division that targeted conservative political groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status. Hall said she left to run the agency's health care office in 2010, about six months before a top deputy learned about the targeting.
Ingram replied that she had seen Arthur Miller's play “The Crucible” performed, and that she was from New England, and was therefore familiar with the legendary witch trials in Salem, Mass., that form the basis of the play.
“Have you been consorting with the devil?” Connolly asked.
“Not to my knowledge, sir,” she answered, with a slight smile.
“Are reports that you can fly accurate?” he asked.
“Greatly exaggerated, sir” was her answer.
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 â 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.