TheHouse of Representatives will vote in May on whether to hold formerIRS official Lois Lerner in contempt for her role in the agency\’stargeting of conservative groups, according to a memo released Fridayby House Republicans.
Thememo from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said the contemptvote would proceed unless Lerner agrees to testify before the HouseOversight and Government Reform Committee about the targetingscandal.
“Thoroughinvestigations by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee aswell as the Ways and Means Committee have revealed findings thatindicate that Ms. Lerner played a central role in the illegaltargeting of conservative groups by the IRS,” the memo reads.
Is this vote justified? Obviously, the answer is yes; there is strong evidence that lerner knew about, and helped along, the singling out of groups with names suggesting they would be in opposition to President Obama. And when she appeared before the House Oversight and Reform Committee, her testimony that she was innocent of any wrongdoing inherently ended any right she had to plead the 5th (you either testify or you don\’t. You have no right to tell your side and then clam up without being asked questions about it.)
Could the house take this vote earlier? Should it have done so already? If you\’re asking me, the answer is yes.
It seems to me that Republicans – the majority party in the house – are taking their time on this vote so lerner\’s testimony, or public refusal to testify, will occur later in the campaign season, so that it can have more of an impact on the mid-term elections.
Assuming I am right, is this the proper way to handle things? On paper, the answer is no. Do what you have to do as expeditiously as possible.
But the other side of the story is that a) the house is doing nothing unethical or illegal and b) in any event, lois “liar” lerner and her Democrat puppeteers have brought this on themselves, by their repulsive, partisan actions.
Look at it this way: there is little doubt that keeping dozens, maybe hundreds, of these groups in limbo until the 2012 election was held – unable to operate as a tax-exempt and unable to appeal a rejection since none was forthcoming – gave President Obama a major advantage during the 2012 election. So, if turnabout is fair play, then this is fair play.
What goes around, comes around. And even though the Democrats “win” here because a Presidential election is much more important than a midterm election, these hearings have the potential to turn a few house and – more importantly – senate seats from D to R. That might result in Republicans winning majorities in both houses and forcing President Obama to curtail his agenda or show himself to be even more of a hugo chavezian dictator than he already has…which, in turn, could have implications for 2016.
Stay tuned.
