Don't members of Congress have essentially a classified, or secret clearance?
If so, I fail to see why anything needs to be reviewed, redacted, restricted, or sterilized. IMHO, when Congress asks you for something, you better damn well give it to them!
*If not Congress, then who?*
If Congress was allowed to see individual tax returns at will there would literally be a one hour delay between the Koch brothers filing a tax return and the New York Times attacking them for their tax return.Don't members of Congress have essentially a classified, or secret clearance?
If so, I fail to see why anything needs to be reviewed, redacted, restricted, or sterilized. IMHO, when Congress asks you for something, you better damn well give it to them!
*If not Congress, then who?*
Yep. Although Koskinen may have a point. Given that Lerner is probably the one who leaked to proggie groups confidential donor information from the conservative groups whose applications were languishing for years, her emails may well be chock full of confidential taxpayer tax information.
EDIT: It would certainly be worth seeing Koskinen in a court of law explaining why it takes years to produce a list of detained organizations' applications after they have counted and classified them. "Well, yes, we have gone through all the detained applications and classified them to show how there really was no problem, your Honor, but it's still going to take years to, um, write down the names. 'Cause we're real busy doing the work of the people and protecting them from Republicans."
It was supposed to be an easy win: The most loathed federal agency engaged in what amounted to discrimination against tea party-backed nonprofits.
But 10 months out from the first IRS scandal headline, some Republicans are unhappy with their party’s investigation — and they point a finger at the man who helped sustain the national uproar: Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).
In background interviews with more than a half-dozen House Republicans on the Oversight and Ways and Means committees, the two panels probing the matter in that chamber, members expressed frustration that the investigation has become a spectacle that’s dragged on and distracted from serious charges.
(Also on POLITICO: GOP hammers new IRS chief)
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who is hoping to replace Issa as chairman next year, expressed regret over the pace of the investigation, saying it’s “lost momentum.” Issa will lose his spot because of term limits — though he might try to fight to stay.
“There is a perception that if your case is rock-solid, it doesn’t need months to sort it out,” said Chaffetz, who like several others, said the recent dust-up between Issa and top panel Democrat Elijah Cummings was unfortunate .
“[It] was a distraction, but we’ll get back on track. Issa made a mistake, he said as much, and I would hope to learn from that,” he said. “But there is a lot of meat on this issue with the IRS, this is not some made-up sensational headline he is trying to grab.”
Others were more blunt.
“There’s a far better way to take this on. … There’s broad frustration with how this has played out, with the road he’s taken,” one Oversight Republican, who asked for anonymity to speak frankly, said of the investigation.
(PHOTOS: 10 slams on the IRS)
The list of complaints includes: Issa waited nearly a year to bring a key IRS witness back to his panel; he let an offer to hear that witness speak slip and may even be causing sympathy for ex-agency official Lois Lerner.
Lerner’s admission that the agency held up applications from tea party conservative groups seeking nonprofit status sparked the controversy in May, followed by a critical inspector general report.
Issa noted in a statement that he requested that report and said his panel uncovered the roles of various Washington officials. The lawmaker also blasted the agency for what he calls foot-dragging in producing documents.
“We are moving forward in the face of ongoing obstruction by IRS officials to ensure accountability and the eventual implementation of reforms to prevent this from ever happening again,” he said. “I know there are sometimes different opinions about how to proceed, but we share a commitment to get to the bottom of how and why this happened, and who was responsible.”
And the chairman has defenders.
(Also on POLITICO: Dems demand end to Benghazi probe)
“Issa has a difficult job, and he is inclusive of other Republicans on the committee, so to the extent that people perceive missteps, there should be culpability assigned to all of us,” said Rep. Trey Gowdy, a panel Republican from South Carolina.
Republicans had hoped Issa would be the attack dog that took down Barack Obama, but his handling of the IRS scandal is a reminder of how he has sometimes gone a step too far, undercutting Republicans’ longer-term goals with his combative style. The IRS matter should be a winning issue for Republicans as they head into the midterm elections.
Issa’s probes of Benghazi and “Fast and Furious” had more smoke than fire as well.
The most recent GOP frustrations center on a pair of Oversight hiccups, including the image of Issa dragging his finger across his throat to signal to his staff to shut off Cummings’s mic to keep him from speaking at a hearing earlier this month.
(QUIZ: How well do you know Darrell Issa?)
Leadership was so irked that it delayed a vote to hold Lerner in contempt, until hype over the incident settled down.
That hearing was supposed to focus on Lerner, who in emails expressed concerns about how the Supreme Court’s Citizens United case would affect the political activities of conservative groups like American Crossroads and the Koch brothers’ groups.
But there’s a lesser-known detail: Lerner’s lawyer offered to let her testify before the committee without immunity — but the Oversight panel lost its chance.
Republicans have said for months that Lerner is the essential witness in the investigation.
Lerner’s lawyer, William Taylor III, though, offered to let her testify twice, according to emails obtained by POLITICO and accounts by both Taylor and Oversight Republican staff.
When Lerner was summoned to appear before Oversight for the second time with less than one week’s notice earlier this month, Taylor sought a deal: She’ll talk without immunity behind closed doors, as long as she doesn’t have to appear in public again.
Issa said no.
Issa said in a brief interview that “the American people have a right to know,” and it was out of his hands: “We could not give the bargain he wanted, which was a guarantee that she would never be called again. It’s not within our power. … Ways and Means could call her, for example.”
Issa ally Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said he backs that decision.
“How are the American people going to hear it? Of course it has to be public,” he said.
But few realize that Taylor came back with an even better offer the Saturday before the hearing: Lerner would testify in public without immunity in return for a one-week delay of the hearing.
Panel staff later told POLITICO they didn’t realize at the time that Taylor’s offer was contingent on the delay.
“I understand … that Ms. Lerner is willing testify, and she is requesting a one-week delay,” wrote top staff lawyer Stephen Castor in an email to Taylor that evening.
The details get a little fuzzy thereafter. Taylor said Issa rejected that offer unless Lerner publicly asked for a delay at the hearing that week, but Oversight Republican staff say they told him maybe and they’d have to discuss it with their members.
Regardless, it all fell apart when Issa went on TV the next day asserting Lerner was part of some sort of targeting cover-up. Taylor withdrew the offer entirely, saying Issa’s comments showed she’d never get a fair House hearing.
Still, several on both panels have said it was a mistake to not negotiate to get Lerner to talk.
“It was a bad policy call,” said an Oversight Republican. “They could have moved the investigation forward.”
Early on, Issa made emphatic suggestions that the White House was involved — without much evidence — which also hurt the Republican cause, some critics said.
“This was a targeting of the president’s political enemies, effectively, and lies [sic] about it during the election year so that it wasn’t discovered until afterwards,” Issa said on “CBS This Morning” last May.
To be sure, Issa is far from the only one making blanket statements. President Barack Obama blamed the matter on “bone-headed decisions out of a local office” in an interview with Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly.
Applications may have originally been flagged in a Cincinnati office, but they sat in limbo because IRS headquarters sat on them for years. The original inspector general report found it was largely managerial incompetence among Washington officials for the hold-up, though they are studying it further.
Oversight spokesman Frederick Hill said they’re doing the best they can to finish the investigation, but “the reality is these things are never over in six months.”
“Of course we want to get to the bottom of this as soon as we can, but when we face an administration that doesn’t fully cooperate in turning over pages that are crucial for the investigation, and we’re working with another committee that has another style and wants to limit information releases … that process takes additional time,” he said.
A different style of information release, to be sure. Issa leaked documents early on, which Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) largely avoided.
“What we’ve tried to do at Ways and Means is start from the ground level and work our way up, tracing the facts and really carefully putting this case together because that’s the only way you’re going to get the real truth,” said Ways and Means member Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.). “We don’t want to jump to conclusions until we have the facts.”
A Ways and Means GOP member said that Camp is palpably frustrated with Issa’s probe — though Camp in a statement for this story said “both Ways and Means and the Oversight committees remain committed to getting all the facts, exposing what really went on at the IRS, and holding all responsible parties accountable.”
Some Ways and Means members also complained that Issa has made the issue seem too partisan — so much that people may begin to sympathize with Lerner.
“What we don’t want to do is make her the victim, and I think some people are starting to see that,” said one tax panel Republican.
Another tax panel Republican said, “Some people like to get their names in headlines and see themselves on TV and others, like [Ways and Means Chairman] Dave Camp, just want to get the job done right,” clearly referring to Issa.
LOL Yeah, clearly that's it. She really wants to testify, honest, but those darned Republicans keep screwing it up so that she can only plead the Fifth, over and over and over. Clever touch that the Republicans both waited too long and wanted it too soon though.Surprised no one posted this from yesterday:
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/darrell-issa-irs-tea-party-investigation-105119.html?hp=l4
Two separate occasions to get Lerner to testify, both turned down for entirely partisan reasons. This only further proves that Republicans, and most especially Issa, couldn't give two shits about getting Lerner to testify and therefore getting to the bottom of the whole affair. Something most non-mouth breathers knew from the start.
LOL Yeah, clearly that's it. She really wants to testify, honest, but those darned Republicans keep screwing it up so that she can only plead the Fifth, over and over and over. Clever touch that the Republicans both waited too long and wanted it too soon though.
Nobody should get to testify behind closed doors unless it's a national security issue, period.
Otherwise the Republicans will have their spin and the Democrats their spin, and the truth be damned. Fuck the American people, they'll take whatever we tell them and like it.
That's not the way government should work, especially when the most feared American government agency admits working on behalf of one political party.
I'm not sure why we would ever need to have a public official tell Congress they'll only talk behind closed doors on matters relating to the public, aside from national security...and this isn't national security. That ask is a non-starter. If Congress decides to have it out in public, well, too F'ing bad for the public official. It'd be like me telling my boss, Hey boss lady, yeah, I'm not going to answer any questions on the 2 CT Leadership call on why I completely F'd something up, and it's going to take you guys years to get my e-mails. What, it took you guys 3 days to have IT pull my e-mails? Well, I plead the 5th, how about that?
Yeah...No...
How can one expect facts and justice when a partisan political hack with questionable personal ethics is running the hearings? Of course people plead the 5th at these things, because it is all about scoring political points.
So you just decided to ignore the part where she agreed to testify in public and without immunity but required a 1 week delay?
I guess it makes maintaining your bubble easier.
So you just decided to ignore the part where she agreed to testify in public and without immunity but required a 1 week delay?
I guess it makes maintaining your bubble easier.
Didn't even read that part. I'm not sure why someone who has been intimately involved with an issue of this magnitude would need A WEEK to testify. Do you honestly think that she, the IRS, and the Bummer admin don't have all the emails, and the entire picture of what really went down, already straight? A one week delay...for what? Imagine this conversation after a major issue you've been right in the middle of Has past blown up: why sure Mr. CIO, I have no problem talking to you and the rest of Leaderhip, but, but even though I should be able to report on this this second, you'll just have to wait a week...because I said so.
Before I sell parked, I worked with Leadership daily. Let me assure you, when an issue of this size has already blown up, telling Leadership that you'll get with th email in a week simply does not fly.
All that being said, if she truly did commit to testifying in a week, in public, I probably would let her have it, if nothing else because it's already spilled milk. I want some damn good reasons WhyTF she needs a week, providing she had them I'd give her the week though. A fucking week...haha...I can't imagine telling senior Leadership that. They'd probably laugh if it was a small call with just them and say nice try...
Issa has been working with her attorney for two years. He's had two years of refusals for an unending series of excuses while they are trying to build the public narrative that she really wants to testify. Besides the brainless unconditionally loyal and ever-hopeful articles from a compliant press this has not worked or Lerner would have moved to phase 2, proclaiming that the process is simply too political for her oh so honest testimony to work. Everyone knows this. (Well, you honestly might not, but everyone else knows this regardless of whether they will admit it.)Mindless yapping. If Issa wanted her testimony, he'd have worked with her attorney to determine the date & time. That's a courtesy commonly extended to witnesses before congress, I suspect. Or he'd force her to testify under a grant of immunity.
It doesn't matter at all why she wants to set the testimony on any particular day, if Issa wants to hear it. If he plays the fool, panders to the twits, deals with her dishonestly, she'll take the 5th, and that's what happened. Just the way Issa planned it.
That's certainly my gut reaction, but I think we need to be very, very cautious in restricting or constricting Fifth Amendment rights or equating their exercising with culpability or malfeasance. Sometimes things that feel so very right can come back to bite us, and it's a certainty that whatever is enforced on government employees will soon fall more heavily on non-government employees.Am I the only one that thinks that if a government employee needs to plead the fifth over the performance of their job duties that they should have their employment terminated?
How can one expect facts and justice when a partisan political hack with questionable personal ethics is running the hearings? Of course people plead the 5th at these things, because it is all about scoring political points.
The scumbag violated the Constitutional rights of innocent Americans yet now wants to use it to defend herself. She is a POS.
Lol wut?
Am I the only one that thinks that if a government employee needs to plead the fifth over the performance of their job duties that they should have their employment terminated?
You don't believe in your own constitution? How sad.
The scumbag violated the Constitutional rights of innocent Americans yet now wants to use it to defend herself. She is a POS.
Probably, I just think we should be very cautious when proposing equating asserting Fifth Amendment privilege with guilt. Particularly with the power of government. The entire point of the Fifth Amendment is to not mandate self-incrimination, but if we begin legally treating this as admission of guilt we've largely eliminated the Fifth Amendment, encouraged the guilty to lie under oath, and undermined our legal system of innocent until proven guilty by a jury of one's peers.I'm not sure what he suggests is a constitutional issue.
If you refused to answer questions of your employer do you not think they can (legally) fire you?
I think they can.
Fern
There is a right to equal treatment under the law, and the IRS by its own admission has violated those rights. The remaining cover-up and stalling is merely to preserve the fiction that such was inadvertent and certainly does not go to the White House; the violation has been ceded. Your laughably weak "interpretation" would allow such things as conservatives being denied home mortgage deductions since there is no specific language addressing this "right".You know I just spent some time looking over the Constitution and I don't see anything about the Constitutional right of political action groups to get tax exempt status from the IRS. Your knowledge of the Constitution is yet again proven to be sub par.
You know I just spent some time looking over the Constitution and I don't see anything about the Constitutional right of political action groups to get tax exempt status from the IRS. Your knowledge of the Constitution is yet again proven to be sub par.
Probably, I just think we should be very cautious when proposing equating asserting Fifth Amendment privilege with guilt. Particularly with the power of government. The entire point of the Fifth Amendment is to not mandate self-incrimination, but if we begin legally treating this as admission of guilt we've largely eliminated the Fifth Amendment, encouraged the guilty to lie under oath, and undermined our legal system of innocent until proven guilty by a jury of one's peers.
-snip-
That I would probably agree with, though I'd still like to see some Constitutional scholars weigh in before I'd jump one way or another. Not that my jumping has much effect on anything.I think what makes this a bit confusing is the combination of a (potentially) criminal investigation by the govt and the fact that the employer is also the govt, albeit a different branch. (Executive versus Legislative)
So, no question she has her rights to the 5th in the investigation by Congress etc.
However, if the employer (IRS) undertook a serious investigation into the matter and she didn't comply I see no constitutional impediment to firing her for noncompliance.
But, IMO, clearly she cannot be fired by the IRS (Exec branch) for failing to testify in a potentially criminal investigation by Congress (Legislative branch).
Fern