If you want a peek into the mindset of your typical bureaucrat read the article at Politico. Not all government employees are bad people, but many turn into “bad people” because of the power unaccountable government jobs give them. A person who needs constant reminders not to be mean or overbearing is a dangerous government employee. Think of Lois Lerner as that bad cop you meet who loves the power the badge gives her, and tells people to do things “because I said so.”
Lois doesn’t think she did anything wrong. She’s not lying. She knows she did ILLEGAL things, like sending donor information to the DOJ upon their request. But wrong? Wrong is a matter of personal opinion at this point in our society’s history. The sixties taught us “the ends justify the means” which translated simply means “all is good, unless you get caught.”
Employers won’t hire her. She’s been berated with epithets like “dirty Jew.” Federal agents have guarded her house because of death threats. And she’s spent hundreds of thousands of dollars defending herself against accusations she orchestrated a coverup in a scandal that has come to represent everything Americans hate about the IRS.
Lois Lerner is toxic — and she knows it. But she refuses to recede into anonymity or beg for forgiveness for her role in the IRS tea party-targeting scandal.
“I didn’t do anything wrong,” Lerner said in her first press interview since the scandal broke 16 months ago. “I’m proud of my career and the job I did for this country.”
Now remember, this is a soft ball job by Politico where no hard question were asked. In that light, even this article can’t hide Lerner’s arrogance and dismissive nature. She IS that guard standing in the docks a Nuremberg bewildered that he is thought to be guilty of a crime “because I was only following orders.”
Lerner is a liberal who hates the conservative part of America. She also felt the Supreme Court decision allowing non-profit organizations to participate in campaigns- something SHE disagreed with. (The arrogance of Lerner.)
Lerner is that type of personality that is drawn to the power of the office she holds. We all know who she is, we’ve worked with her doppelgangers all our lives.
Lerner, who sat down with POLITICO in an exclusive two-hour session, has been painted in one dimension: as a powerful bureaucrat scheming with the Obama administration to cripple right-leaning nonprofits. Interviews with about 20 of her colleagues, friends and critics and a survey of emails and other IRS documents, however, reveal a much more complicated figure than the caricature she’s become in the public eye.
The portrait that emerges shows Lerner is, indeed, fierce, unapologetic and perhaps even tone-deaf when she says things that show her Democratic leanings. She had a quick temper and may have intimidated co-workers who could have helped her out of this mess. It’s easy to see how Republicans have seized on the image of a devilish figure cracking down on conservative nonprofits.
What do we know to be true? Over at theconservativetreehouse, they lay out the reason the IRS scandal will never be addressed by the DOJ- it was the DOJ’s idea in the first place.
We first discovered it on June 28th 2014 as an outcome of another research project we were working on. We have tried to draw as much attention to it as we can. Thankfully the Daily Caller is closing in, The Wall Street Journal is stumbling in that direction, and The American Center for Law and Justice’s Jay Sekulow has finally connected the dots.
How can the DOJ conduct an investigation into unlawful aspects of the IRS targeting of specific 501(c)(4) groups, when the DOJ is the initiating body for the illegality they are seeking to investigate ?
The IRS scandal is NOT about the IRS. Yes, the IRS did indeed target conservative groups; however, they were NOT the originating entity in the overall plan to create a list of targets.
The U.S. Department of Justice was the originating governmental agency who constructed the plan to make a target list and then weaponize various government agencies against those on the list.
As said, we stumbled onto the DOJ trail of evidence back in June when we reviewed one of very few disclosures given by Lois Lerner’s attorney William Taylor III. In a moment of clarity, which was not caught by the interviewer, William Taylor responded to questioning by stating that his client, Lois Lerner, was merely responding to a request from the Department of Justice, when she sent confidential tax files to the DOJ.
Taylor said Lerner didn’t know and sent them because Justice requested the documents: “She [understood] the donor information on Schedule B had been removed. In some cases, we later learned, it may not have been.” (link)
Lois Lerner sent the DOJ 1.1 million pages of 501(c)(4) tax filing data. Including a very specific set of “33 Schedule B attachment files”. The Schedule B’s were specific to Large Conservative 501(c)(4) groups operating and organized to oppose the agenda of President Obama. The Schedule B’s include the donor lists of specific people and sub-groups attached to the 501(c)(4).
In essence the donor group or names of every person who supported the larger conservative group.
For obvious reasons it is illegal to distribute that data. It is primarily illegal because such information could be used to create a list of people in opposition to the executive branch; that is exactly what happened. Lois Lerner sent the data to the DOJ just before 2010 mid-terms.
The DOJ hid the connection for three years and did not admit the submission until 2013 when congress was about to find out through one of their IRS subpoenas. The DOJ said it was some form of miscommunication, merely a mistake. The DOJ claimed they did not expect to get the Schedule B information, and never noticed it until the House investigation began.
If it is now public knowledge this happened, then why isn’t Congress doing something? Because they don’t have the power- except the power of the purse. Eric Holder refuses to appoint an independent prosecutor because it would lead to indictments. Bob Beckel at the “FIVE” made the point that nobody in this administration had been indicted for anything- as though that was a point of honor instead of a black mark against Holder’s ethics. I’m sure if we checked, during the reign of the Nazis in Germany no one in their administration was indicted for things like the wholesale slaughter of Jews either. Doesn’t make it right.
Back to Lerner.
Lerner, then head of the division handling organizations claiming tax-exempt status, obliged and dropped what turned out to be a political bombshell at an American Bar Association conference, using a planted question to apologize for the treatment of right-leaning nonprofits from IRS “front-line people” in Cincinnati.
Within days, lawmakers in both parties were calling for her resignation, furious that IRS leaders, including Lerner, had withheld information when asked by lawmakers for months about the matter. Top officials also blamed Cincinnati, when, in fact, Washington was also handling the cases.
Called to testify before the House Oversight Committee, Lerner decided to take the Fifth and read a defiant speech declaring her innocence — one that Republicans argued waived her rights. She says she’d do it again.
“By taking the Fifth, Lois put a sign on her back: Kick me,” said Paul Streckfus, editor of the EO Tax Journal. “To the average person, that sounds like, ‘Oh my God, she must be hiding something!’”
Lerner, for her part, assumes she is at the center of the storm because “I was the person who announced it. I assume the other part of it is because I declined to talk, and once I declined to talk, they could say anything they wanted, and they knew I couldn’t say anything back.”
Okay calling bullshit. Anyone who has been in police work and done investigations know the reason the person pleads the fifth is they are hiding something.
First of all she could talk, and talk honestly but she didn’t. SHE chose to plead the fifth. Why? If she did nothing wrong, then she could simply explain why she lied about the abuses coming from a remote office, or why she sent- knowing it is illegal (she is a IRS lawyer after all)- private records to the DOJ, or how her hard drive crashed, or how six of the people DIRECTLY involved in the DOJ/IRS effort had the same thing happen to theirs.
She could. But she didn’t. And for obvious reasons. Lerner is a loyal and eager foot soldier, who agreed with the current administration’s ideology on shutting down opinions from the conservative side. (Again the US Supreme Court ruling against her former agency.) She said so in her emails that were turned over. One can only assume the key ones, from the key period of time that are still missing, contain far more damning information. Many think they would link the DOJ and others inside the IRS to an illegal effort to use federal agencies to intimidate and harass political opponents. It really is that simple. And the paper trail would run right into the campaign organization in the White House. Remember, “the ends justify the means.” And the end in this case was to reelect Obama. Americans have trouble recognizing just how cold and dangerous certain elements are within our society. We wouldn’t cheat like that, so we think others in America wouldn’t either.
But Republicans contend her skepticism of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision lifting limits on corporate political contributions is damning. They point to emails, including one from June 11, 2012, about how states responded to the case by creating their own disclosure rules. Lerner wrote to the author: “You done good! Now, if you can only fix the darn law!”
In another email, Lerner commented on an IRS group email circulating Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen’s legislation requiring more disclosure of political groups getting tax breaks. She wrote: “Wouldn’t that be great?”
Although she wouldn’t discuss these issues at the behest of her lawyers, Lerner said it is unrealistic to expect public servants not to have opinions: “What matters is that my personal opinions have never affected my work.”
Not everyone is convinced. Reagan-appointed former Federal Election Commission Commissioner Lee Ann Elliott and Craig Engle, a former executive assistant to a GOP commissioner, who worked alongside Lerner in her role prosecuting campaign finance violations at the FEC, think she was biased against big political spenders. They say she was tough on certain groups because she didn’t like them influencing elections.
“Lois’ ideology is against money in politics, is ‘anti-contribution’; that’s her bias,” said Engle, an Arent Fox partner. “Her ideology inhibited fair administration of the law.”
Lerner isn’t a monster. She’s just that ideological bureaucrat that believes her way is the right way. We see it all the time, from a bureaucrat in a school giving a kid detention for sharing a sandwich, to the cop who says he can’t be videotaped in public because HE doesn’t like it. Where the difference occurs is that having a kindred spirit in the White House allowed her to execute her bias without worries of retaliation or accountability.
The only way you stop this kind of abuse it so hold the abuser to account. In Lerner’s case, I wished Romney had been elected if only for that independent counsel indicting her and putting her in jail for five years. Trust me, old Mrs “I see nothing! Schultz” there would be singing like a canary and we’d be getting a lot more indictments INCLUDING some from the staff of Representative Cummings. (Who is on the panel even after that was discovered- so how serious are they?)
Already, the blow back from the interview is caustic. She came across arrogant and unrepentant, then walked off with a toss away comment to anyone who thinks being the source of unknown damage to many innocent citizens and possibly change the course of a Presidential election.
Of course, that also means she can’t escape public humiliation when she is recognized. She’s been berated by strangers and told she is “going to be put away in the deepest, darkest dungeon, and they were going to lock me up and throw away the key.”
Maybe someday she’ll write a book. Maybe not. She doesn’t know when, or if, she’ll tell the full story of what happened, though she assures POLITICO that “you don’t hear half of what happened because they are picking and choosing.”
Asked what she’d say if she could tell the world anything, she reiterated her innocence. Then, as she starts to get up to walk away from the interview, she added: “And, oh, one more thing: I’m doing just fine.”