Sadly, Republicans in the House did not make Ms. Lerner sit through this. But they should've!
Atty. Gayle Trotter provides a line of questioning that details the IRS’s
controversial actions as well as the far-reaching implications of the scandal:
these are the questions that we should be asking. Ms. Trotter is an attorney in Washington and a Senior Fellow with the Independent Women’s Forum. See below for the full oped.
Or click HERE for the article in The Daily Caller
As a public service, I am presenting this transcript of the
testimony we could have heard from the IRS official in charge of tax-exempt
organizations.
After testifying before the House Oversight Committee that she did nothing
wrong, IRS tax-exempt organizations director Lois Lerner said that she would not
“answer any questions or testify about the subject matter of the committee’s
meeting.”
Committee Chairman Darrell Issa pointedly told Lerner that she is uniquely
able to provide testimony on how and why the IRS targeted conservative groups.
Lerner took five, as criminal lawyers say. She responded by invoking the Fifth
Amendment and refusing to answer any of the committee’s questions.
Imagine how the questioning could have unfolded on national television:
Q. “Are you the head and director of the IRS tax-exempt organizations
division, and were you given that job because you are experienced and
knowledgeable about the Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(4), which governs
tax-exempt entities for social, welfare, grassroots and other lobbying or issue
membership organizations?”
A. “On the advice of counsel, I decline to answer any questions before this
committee on the grounds that the information I provide may tend to incriminate
me.”
Q. “You are the head of the IRS’s tax-exempt organizations division, and yet
you cannot tell this committee whether you are familiar with the laws that you
administer, laws that result in compulsory payment of money upon pain of
criminal liability?”
A. “I decline to answer.”
Q. “Do you know what 501(c)(4) organizations are permitted to do?”
A. “I decline to answer.”
Q. “Are you aware that 501(c)(4) organizations may publicly educate on policy
issues? That the law permits them to engage in direct lobbying? That they may
mobilize their members for grassroots lobbying and campaign purposes? That they
may make candidate-related expenses?”
A. “I decline to answer.”
Q. “Do you realize that before 2010, the time frame for review and approval
of IRS tax-exempt status was normally 3 to 6 months for a 501(c)(4)
organization?”
A. “I decline to answer.”
Q. “Were you aware that a presidential election would occur, and did occur,
in November 2012?”
A. “I decline to answer.”
Q. “Were you aware that your division was targeting groups that opposed
Barack Obama’s policies and his re-election?”
A. “I decline to answer.”
Q. “Do you know what the First Amendment of our Constitution says? Do you
understand that it protects political speech and association? That these
principles are at the core of our First Amendment protections? Do you realize
that the IRS federal governmental program of targeting viewpoint organizations
directly thwarts one of our most precious constitutional rights?”
A. “I decline to answer.”
Q. “Do you know that the IRS is still holding up the applications for exempt
status for dozens — if not hundreds — of conservative organizations? Do you
realize this is a continuing problem?”
A. “I decline to answer.”
Q. “What changes have been made to return to the historic review process
instead of the gross privacy invasions and First Amendment violations of these
groups of engaged citizens?”
A. “I decline to answer.”
Q. “Are you aware that, for conservative viewpoint organizations — but not
for left-leaning organizations — the IRS review process involved lengthy and
intrusive questions, such as ‘Provide details regarding all training you have
provided or will provide’ and ‘Indicate who has received or will receive
training and submit copies of the training material’? What do you believe is the
legitimate basis for asking such intrusive questions? Why did you ask these
questions only of conservative organizations?”
A. “I decline to answer.”
Q. “The IRS required one organization to detail how many small groups have
been formed through the organization’s program and how many national
organizations the group has formed coalitions with through the program. Why on
earth would the IRS need to know this to grant tax-exempt status? Why weren’t
other groups asked the same questions?”
A. “I decline to answer.”
Q. “Are you aware that groups were asked for extensive information about
their volunteers, including the number of their volunteers, the number devoted
to each activity throughout the year and how many and what sort of resources the
groups devoted to volunteer activities? What does this have to do with
tax-exempt status? Were other groups asked the same question?”
A. “I decline to answer.”
Q. “Why did you ask the targeted groups to provide a list of all issues that
are important to them, and why did you require the groups to indicate their
position on each issue? Do you believe the IRS is intended to function as the
nation’s thought police?”
A. “I decline to answer.”
Q. “Why, in contravention of the First Amendment’s protection of free
association, did you seek comprehensive information about events and gatherings?
Why did you seek information on rallies, educational events, discussion groups
or similar events, including the date, location, nature of event and copies of
all distributed materials? Why do you believe this is acceptable conduct for a
federal agency?”
A. “I decline to answer.”
Q. “Why did you ask for information about public rallies or exhibitions for
2012 and 2013, including the time, location and content schedule of each rally
and event? Do you agree that demanding this type of information has a chilling
effect on political engagement by citizens? Why would you need this
information?”
A. “I decline to answer.”
Q. “Why did you demand to know how the group would recruit individuals, how
they would be trained, how many were trained and in what states and
jurisdictions training would take place? What relevance could this have for a
determination of tax-exempt status? Why were only conservative groups targeted
for these inquiries?”
A. “I decline to answer.”
Q. “Why did you ask groups to provide a list of contributors in 2009 through
2011? Did you intend to use such lists to target contributors? Would they become
subject to IRS audits and harassment?”
A. “I decline to answer.”
Q. “Are your employees civil servants whose salaries are paid by taxpayers?
And yet, are they predominately devoted to the partisan objectives of the Obama
administration?”
A. “I decline to answer.”
Q. “Was your pattern of delay, harassment and intimidation designed to
influence the outcome of a national election?”
A. “I decline to answer.”
Q. “I have no further questions. The witness may stand down.”
Gayle Trotter is an attorney and writer. The views expressed are her
own.
