The Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday afternoon that Lois Lerner, who heads up the Internal Revenue Service’s tax-exempt division, plans to invoke the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in a hearing Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Affairs.
The Fifth Amendment provides that U.S. citizens may not be compelled to offer testimony if telling the truth would incriminate them.
Lerner’s defense lawyer, William W. Taylor III, wrote to the committee on Tuesday that his client would refuse to answer questions related to what she knew about the extra levels of scrutiny applied to conservative nonprofit organizations that applied for tax-exempt status beginning in 2010.
One of the biggest jokes in politics is when a corrupt administration starts talking exclusively about reforming policy.
When Al Gore took money from Chinese nuns who were pass-throughs for illegal donations from the Chinese government, what spin did he and his media allies employ? That The System needs to be reformed.
And what of Al Gore? Does Al Gore himself need to be held accountable?
Nay. Just The System.
The law is “irrelevant.” We do not need to talk about who broke what law, or who should be charged with what crime. All we need to do is change some policiesand call it a day.
Is that the way an Administration which is alleged “outraged” speaks? Is this the language of an Administration which is determined to find out who’s at fault?
No. It’s the language of an Administration which doesn’t want anyone prosecuted.
And why should that be? Why does Obama care about the legal jeopardy faced by a “low level employee”? He’s got the YouTube filmmaker in jail; this is obviously not a man much concerned with the welfare of useful political scapegoats.
You can either throw a “policy” under the bus or you can throw a person under the bus.
There is one huge advantage to throwing a policy under the bus: Policies do not begin leaking to the media and then turn on their higher-ups when they’re thrown under the bus.
People do. People will keep quiet… so long as you protect them from legal consequences. But when faced with such consequences, they tend to talk.
Policies do not.
Policies are the most useful scapegoat at all.
Obama’s spokesman Dan Pfeiffer only wishes to discuss Severe Consequences which will befall a Policy. He only wants to talk about the future, not about punishing past misdeeds.
I know one thing: He’s pursuing the Perfect Strategy if he wants people to stay shut-up and wants to keep people from sharing all they know.
I don’t think this is an accident.
I think it’s the plan.
And if it is the plan — which it is — why would Obama want to keep the investigation as small and limited as possible, if he really has no fear of what people might say were they to be charged with a crime?