Did the IRS Really Lose Lois Lerner’s Emails? Let a Special Prosecutor Find Them.

Obama needs to address this “phony scandal” and the public trust with real transparency.

Lois Lerner, former director of the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), listens during a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Capitol Hill March 5, 2014 in Washington, DC. Chairman Darrell Issa(R-CA) questioned witness Lerner, to see if the Internal Revenue Service has been targeting US citizens based on their political beliefs. Lerner invoked her Fifth Amendment right not to testify.
National Journal
June 13, 2014, 7:58 p.m.

A sloppy mis­take, the gov­ern­ment calls it, but you couldn’t blame a per­son for sus­pect­ing a cov­er-up — the loss of an un­told num­ber of emails to and from the cent­ral fig­ure in the IRS tea-party con­tro­versy. And be­cause the pub­lic’s trust is a fra­gile gift that the White House has frittered away in a series of second-term mis­steps, Pres­id­ent Obama needs to act.

If the IRS can’t find the emails, maybe a spe­cial pro­sec­utor can.

The an­nounce­ment came late Fri­day, a too-cute-by-half cliche of a PR strategy to mit­ig­ate back­lash. “The IRS told Con­gress it can­not loc­ate many of Lois Lern­er’s emails pri­or to 2011 be­cause her com­puter crashed dur­ing the sum­mer of that year,” the As­so­ci­ated Press re­por­ted.

Lern­er headed the IRS di­vi­sion that pro­cessed ap­plic­a­tions for tax-ex­empt status. The IRS ac­know­ledged last year that agents had im­prop­erly scru­tin­ized ap­plic­a­tions for tax-ex­empt status by tea-party and oth­er con­ser­vat­ive groups.

At is­sue is wheth­er the IRS probes were polit­ic­ally mo­tiv­ated and dir­ec­ted by the White House. Con­gres­sion­al in­vest­ig­at­ors were hop­ing for an­swers in Lern­er’s emails.

The IRS also screened lib­er­al groups, which Demo­crats claim as proof that there was no ab­use of power. That’s wish­ful think­ing. The fact that lib­er­al groups were screened is mit­ig­at­ing, not dis­pos­it­ive.

Re­pub­lic­ans law­makers are prone not to trust any ex­plan­a­tion from the White House. Their most con­ser­vat­ive voters as­sumed from the start that the White House was tar­get­ing right-lean­ing groups for in­tim­id­a­tion.

“The fact that I am just learn­ing about this, over a year in­to the in­vest­ig­a­tion, is com­pletely un­ac­cept­able and now calls in­to ques­tion the cred­ib­il­ity of the IRS’s re­sponse to con­gres­sion­al in­quir­ies,” said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., chair­man of the House Ways and Means Com­mit­tee. “There needs to be an im­me­di­ate in­vest­ig­a­tion and forensic audit by De­part­ment of Justice as well as the in­spect­or gen­er­al.”

Obama has adam­antly re­jec­ted the sug­ges­tion that the IRS was used for polit­ic­al pur­poses. “That’s not what happened,” he told Fox News in Feb­ru­ary. Rather, he said, IRS of­fi­cials were con­fused about how to im­ple­ment the law gov­ern­ing those kinds of tax-ex­empt groups. “Not even a smidgen of cor­rup­tion” oc­curred, he said. His al­lies dubbed it a “phony scan­dal.”

Six weeks after the scan­dal broke, I chas­tised House Re­pub­lic­ans for cherry-pick­ing evid­ence and jump­ing to con­clu­sions. In the same column, I urged the pres­id­ent to be trans­par­ent: pave way for in­vest­ig­at­ors to ques­tion wit­nesses un­der oath and sub­poena the White House and his own reelec­tion cam­paign for re­lated emails and oth­er doc­u­ments.

If forced to guess, I would say that the IRS and its White House mas­ters are guilty of gross in­com­pet­ence, but not cor­rup­tion. I based that only on my per­son­al know­ledge of — and re­spect for — Obama and his team. But I shouldn’t have to guess. More im­port­antly, most Amer­ic­ans don’t have a pro­fes­sion­al re­la­tion­ship with Obama and his team. Many don’t re­spect or trust gov­ern­ment. They de­serve what Obama prom­ised nearly six weeks ago — ac­count­ab­il­ity. They need a thor­ough in­vest­ig­a­tion con­duc­ted by some­body oth­er than dem­agogic Re­pub­lic­ans and White House al­lies.

Some­body like “¦ a spe­cial pro­sec­utor. Those words are hard for me to type two dec­ades after an in­no­cent land deal I covered in Arkan­sas turned in­to the run­away White­wa­ter in­vest­ig­a­tion.

Noth­ing has changed. The White House is stone­walling the IRS in­vest­ig­a­tion. The most be­nign ex­plan­a­tion is that Obama’s team is polit­ic­ally ex­pedi­ent and ar­rog­ant, which makes them des­per­ate to change the sub­ject and con­vinced of their in­sti­tu­tion­al in­no­cence. That’s bad enough. But without a fiercely in­de­pend­ent in­vest­ig­a­tion, we shouldn’t as­sume the ex­plan­a­tion is be­nign.

What We're Following See More »
AVOIDS SHUTDOWN WITH A FEW HOURS TO SPARE
Trump Signs Border Deal
2 days ago
THE LATEST

"President Trump signed a sweeping spending bill Friday afternoon, averting another partial government shutdown. The action came after Trump had declared a national emergency in a move designed to circumvent Congress and build additional barriers at the southern border, where he said the United States faces 'an invasion of our country.'"

Source:
REDIRECTS $8 BILLION
Trump Declares National Emergency
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

"President Donald Trump on Friday declared a state of emergency on the southern border and immediately direct $8 billion to construct or repair as many as 234 miles of a border barrier. The move — which is sure to invite vigorous legal challenges from activists and government officials — comes after Trump failed to get the $5.7 billion he was seeking from lawmakers. Instead, Trump agreed to sign a deal that included just $1.375 for border security."

Source:
COULD SOW DIVISION AMONG REPUBLICANS
House Will Condemn Emergency Declaration
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

"House Democrats are gearing up to pass a joint resolution disapproving of President Trump’s emergency declaration to build his U.S.-Mexico border wall, a move that will force Senate Republicans to vote on a contentious issue that divides their party. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Thursday evening in an interview with The Washington Post that the House would take up the resolution in the coming days or weeks. The measure is expected to easily clear the Democratic-led House, and because it would be privileged, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would be forced to put the resolution to a vote that he could lose."

Source:
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, DRUG FORFEITURE FUND
Where Will the Emergency Money Come From?
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

"ABC News has learned the president plans to announce on Friday his intention to spend about $8 billion on the border wall with a mix of spending from Congressional appropriations approved Thursday night, executive action and an emergency declaration. A senior White House official familiar with the plan told ABC News that $1.375 billion would come from the spending bill Congress passed Thursday; $600 million would come from the Treasury Department's drug forfeiture fund; $2.5 billion would come from the Pentagon's drug interdiction program; and through an emergency declaration: $3.5 billion from the Pentagon's military construction budget."

Source:
TRUMP SAYS HE WILL SIGN
House Passes Funding Deal
3 days ago
THE DETAILS

"The House passed a massive border and budget bill that would avert a shutdown and keep the government funded through the end of September. The Senate passed the measure earlier Thursday. The bill provides $1.375 billion for fences, far short of the $5.7 billion President Trump had demanded to fund steel walls. But the president says he will sign the legislation, and instead seek to fund his border wall by declaring a national emergency."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login