IRS' Lois Lerner To Plead The Fifth Before House Oversight Committee

Tyler Durden's picture

For an affair that numerous media outlets will have you believe has been spun out of all proportion, and that it really is the conservatives fault that the IRS was targeting them, it is somewhat ironic that the IRS official who opened up the entire Pandora's box with her targeted apology two weeks ago, and who learned in 2011 about the improper targeting of political groups yet lied under oath to Congress to the contrary, has decided to plead the Fifth and will invoke her right not to testify on Wednesday for fear of self-incrimination, according to her lawyer. But this would mean that... she may have something to hide? And that would be rather problematic for the media's spin cycle, although we are confident it will take just a few minutes of deep though in the proper channels, before this all too overt admission of guilt is somehow spun as the IRS being the unwitting targets of an aggressive McCarthyesque campaign seeking to discredit the government's impartial tax collector whose only noble purpose is to enable the government to get even bigger.

From the LA Times:

Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, won’t answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening — or why she didn’t disclose it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor III. Lerner was scheduled to appear before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday.


“She has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course,” said a letter by Taylor to committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Vista). The letter, sent Monday, was obtained Tuesday by the Los Angeles Times.

Perhaps she could clarify what circumstances those are: maybe the same ones that forced her to bow out of the Western New England Law School commencement speech?

Taylor, a criminal defense attorney from the Washington firm Zuckerman Spaeder, said that the Department of Justice has launched a criminal investigation, and that the House committee has asked Lerner to explain why she provided “false or misleading information” to the committee four times last year.


Since Lerner won’t answer questions, Taylor asked that she be excused from appearing, saying that would “have no purpose other than to embarrass or burden her.” There was no immediate word whether the committee will grant her request.

Wait, criminal investigation? Does this mean that the administration will offer yet another deferred-prosecution deal whose terms will involve harsh mandatory lifetime pensions and onerous full benefits upon retirement?  Surely not even a corrupt, co-opted, drenched in scandals administration is that inhumane.

And on that note, we leave you with...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
flacon's picture

If we all stop paying our taxes together then we can defeat them. 

player333's picture

Exactly, the next civil war has begun and the only way to defeat this now has a life and purpose of its own..survice and grow-is to starve the beast.

john39's picture

no crime committed if you aren't earning any real money...   why work for the system anyway, the criminals are just going to steal from you or inflate away your wealth... 

kaiserhoff's picture

She is now qualified to run the SEC.


What is this fifth ammendment she speaks of? I didn't know there were any rights left in the land of the free. 

imaginalis's picture

Give her a deal to blow the whistle

Chupacabra-322's picture

It’s already been documented in the IG’s report. Analyzing the email records of the IRS and correlating it with the White House sign-in logs, the POTUS (Obama) met with the head of the IRS employees union on March 31 .. and the directives began to flow on April 1, via email, to closely scrutinize, investigate, and report on the Tea Party. The only missing pieces of that puzzle are the minutes of that meeting and any related White House email activity. It’s time for Congress to subpoena those items!

DeadFred's picture

You are making big assumptions there. The IRS union head swears that there were no meetings with the Prez or Treasury Secretary or anyone of importance. Perhaps it was a sight seeing tour because, after all, everyone should see the White House sometime in their life.

Remember for these guys English is a second language, lies are their native tongue.

MrPalladium's picture

A Lois Lerner targeting the right?

My, what a surprise!

Big Slick's picture

Chupacabra-322  I've seen reports that 1 day prior to POTUS's meeting with the IRS union leaders, he met with a leader of an anti-tea party organization in the White House.  Know anything about this?

johngaltfla's picture

It doesn't matter. With Holder's announcement last Friday, the scandal has been Fast and Furuioused....


The IRS Scandal is Officially Dead

Joe Davola's picture

Watched a documentary on the military channel last night (yes, right wing nerd through and through) about the rise of the Nazi party:

1.  Debase the currency - check

2.  Control the media - check

3.  Target specific groups - check

4.  Vilify the opposition - check

5.  Eliminate dissenters - check

6.  Rule by decree - check

7.  Eminate legislative body - soon enough

erg's picture

Instead of the usual fare such as nooses and the like, let's reintroduce the often forgotten trebuchet.

Fling 'em all into the sunset. We can attach streamers so that we can hear them whistle as they're launched over yonder hill.

Al Gorerhythm's picture

I'll keep my dogs locked up when you are in the area.

erg's picture

+1 I remember his interview where he detailed his fleeting friendship with a Rockefucker. I forget which hydra-head.

Little Jimmie? Steve? Bubba? Gino? Aardvark, armadillo? Jim?

knukles's picture

Well he's right, isn't he.  They may have met with them but at least one party to the meeting is not important.  We'll see who gets thrown under the bus :)

NoDebt's picture

This thing I find most telling in these affairs is how QUICKLY they were already happening.  About the time various "fringe" groups (ZH, Tea Party, anyone standing up and sayin "wait a minute") just started pointing out possible areas of governmental abuse of power IT WAS ALREADY IMPLEMENTED.  Not "maybe someday," not "in the future".  It was ALREADY HAPPENING.

That's the problem with being cynical.  You can never be cynical enough to get ahead of the curve.

Can't wait to see this same organization implementing Obamacare.  Should be very entertaining considering how much it's going to cost all of us.

knukles's picture

It is not a Conspiracy Theory when it's a Fucking Fact.

krispkritter's picture

 "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell 

Well, we know who the revolutionairies aren't...

 "Never wear your best trousers when you go out to fight for freedom and truth." Henrik Ibsen

and lastly; "If not us, who? If not now, when?"

Chuck Walla's picture

"Truth is treason in the Empire of Lies."

~ Ron Paul


kill switch's picture




Here's another little gem of truth being ignored.


The 16th was never ratified..

On January 10, 2008, the Federal District Court in Chicago issued a permanent injunction against Bill Benson on the grounds that by offering information demonstrating that the 16th Amendment was not legally ratified, he was promoting an abusive tax shelter. The Court then refused to look at the government-certified documentary evidence, deciding instead that the facts necessary to prove his statements true were "irrelevant."

What has America come to when the government we created to protect our rights can accuse us of lying and then prohibit us from presenting a defense in a court of law?

Watch the Benson Video

The Premise

The federal government rests its authority to collect income tax on the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—the federal income tax amendment—which was allegedly ratified in 1913.

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

—The 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

After an extensive year-long nationwide research project, William J. Benson discovered that the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the requisite three-fourths of the states and that nevertheless Secretary of State Philander Knox had fraudulently declared ratification.

It was a shocking revelation; it reached deep to the core of our American system of government.

The Discovery

Article V of the U.S. Constitution defines the ratification process and requires three-fourths of the states to ratify any amendment proposed by Congress. There were fourty-eight states in the American Union in 1913, meaning that affirmative action of thirty-six was necessary for ratification. In February 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox proclaimed that thirty-eight had ratified the Amendment.

In 1984 Bill Benson began a research project, never before performed, to investigate the process of ratification of the 16th Amendment. After traveling to the capitols of the New England states and reviewing the journals of the state legislative bodies, he saw that many states had not ratified. He continued his research at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.; it was here that Bill found his Golden Key.

This damning piece of evidence is a sixteen-page memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State, among whose duties is the provision of legal opinions for the Secretary of State. In this memorandum, the Solicitor lists the many errors he found in the ratification process.

These four states are among the thirty-eight from which Philander Knox claimed ratification:

  • California: The legislature never recorded any vote on any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.

  • Kentucky: The Senate voted on the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of nine in favor and twenty-two opposed.

  • Minnesota: The State sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.

  • Oklahoma: The Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.



Herd Redirection Committee's picture

The very term Conspiracy Theory is discredited.  We should stop using it. The truth is, if you had proof of some of this stuff, real proof, they wouldn't hesitate to have you 'commit suicide'. 

Want that level of proof?  You need to realize its unlikely, because we are talking about people willing to kill in order to avoid being caught. 

If you are an insider, you can't leak the truth.  But you can hint to people, point them in the right direction, show them whats in the public domain, get them asking the right questions.

Lost Word's picture

I prefer the term Conspiracy History.

McMolotov's picture

"Here's what you do. You tell him that you're his friend and that you're going to help him and that everything's going to be alright. And then you put a wire on him, and you find out who's selling him drugs, and then you get that guy and you flip him. Turn him into a snitch. You follow that guy to people really, really bad. Been watching The Wire recently. I don't understand a word of it."

—Michael Scott, The Office

kralizec's picture

Yeah, I'd give her a deal!  Cough up who authorized this or stay locked in a pillory on the Capitol lawn without food or water...or die for your master...your choice, bitch!

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture


What is this fifth ammendment she speaks of?

It's from an archaic and obsolete governing document which has been superseded by The Global War on Terra®.

As an IRS official, Lois Lerner should know quite well that the Constitution is to be disregarded. She also knows that the standard procedure for individuals which are not quite fully "cooperative" is waterboarding until the desired answers are obtained. She must have an interesting ace up her sleeve.

Taint Boil's picture



Fifth Amendment: 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. 

It is her right, what’s the problem? 

Taint Boil says:

Better to let a guilty man go free than convict a person who is innocent – end of story.


TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Taint Boil says:

Better to let a guilty man go free than convict a person who is innocent – end of story.

I agree. That must make me a terra-ist.

krispkritter's picture

Um, yeah, if they were in fact subjected to the Rule of Law and allowed to be properly vetted in the system. Problem is, the system is circumvented, diluted, and corrupt for those in power.  Therefore I'd prefer to start the head-letting and when the heads start rolling, those who are most corrupt will call for the reinstatement of law. Why? Because they know that without it, there will be no end to their slaughter.  Call me an optimist but I think without that type of persuasion, there will be no end to the corruption and greed. 

nmewn's picture

Its a little different when its a government employee using the states apparatus and the "color of law" against the citizen who has done absolutely nothing illegal.

Hitler had laws & courts too.

They've already admitted they targeted their political opponents...not criminals.

nmewn's picture

Yeah, my brother...

"I can confirm that an intrusion of my computers has been under some investigation on my end for some months but I'm not prepared to make an allegation against a specific entity today as I've been patient and methodical about this matter." Sharyl Attkisson

Just sayin, she's my favorite bulldog ;-)

Taint Boil's picture



Apologies, nmewn….. not directed towards you but: 

We are a republic not a democracy; mob rule has no place in a republic. You may not like it and maybe I don’t like it … but it is not for us to decide. 

They've already admitted they targeted their political opponents…. 

Yeah, they’re scum, but the constitution protects them, as it should … or am I wrong? That is the beauty of it … the scum go free to protect the innocent – fine by me.

krispkritter's picture

Who gets to decide then?  If the only right they observe is for themselves, and themselves alone, and it is to protect them and they can throw all Other's rights away in the bid to save their asses, what sort of Republic remains for the common man? Is that then a Republic? 

Cdad's picture

We have not been a Republic for a long time now.  

On the point of the Constitution, you are correct.  However, failure to testify should then lead to a charges...and a trial.  Which is fine by me.  But will that happen?  My guess is no, and perhaps then you will see...that we have not been a Republic for a long time.


nmewn's picture

First off, no, thats not my down.

"They've already admitted they targeted their political opponents….

Yeah, they’re scum, but the constitution protects them, as it should … or am I wrong?"

The Constitution is no more, not the one our forefathers fought and bled out for. The Bill of Rights however, is still very much in force and will be forever. Its ours under any other name you want to call it natural rights or whatever you want.

And that (BoR's) doesn't apply to government, its henchmen or its employees, it never has. It supplies no protection for those in government who go against the People. It forbids government (contracturally) from doing exactly what it did.

Now one of the apparatchiks want to use the same device she/they abused?

I'm not that good natured. This is a crime above any other, they broke the trust.

Taint Boil's picture



It supplies no protection for those in government who go against the People. It forbids government (contracturally) from doing exactly what it did. 

Hmmm, very good point(s) (including all the above replies) to my “throw gas on the fire” statement, this is why I like Zero hedge. 

Oquities's picture

your moniker, your sarcasm, your explicit bluntness make me proud of this website's free speech credo.  they enable you.  your succintness and in-your-face-itioness astound.  clap,clap.

DaveyJones's picture

the fifth amendment is the right to substitute hope with hard liquor. It's why guards allow prisoners to make rasin wine. We borrowed the concept from Russia

max2205's picture

I like ZH the political site vs the gold site.  Thanks for the down arrows

Chupacabra-322's picture

The government has no interest in or philosophical belief in telling the public the “truth” .. we look at them as public servants because we are naive . Once you are a CRIMINAL member of the gang of government, your interests are with governments interests not ours. Governments interests are fundamentally opposed to the interests of its citizens, so it has to fool the host (us) in to thinking the parasitic relationship is necessary despite its obvious abusiveness. Its a classic abusive codependent relationship.

This whole thing is an orchestration. We are being fed and led like cattle. You can taste it.

Motive? I think the time is up for the sheep to be trusting much in our national identity. The PTB would rather we did not trust in the feds. They want to introduce an international force to subjugate us when our dollar evaporates. The usefulness of the sheep trusting the feds along with the pretense of a duly elected federal government is no longer needed. Soon it will be “you are either with our new and better global government or you will be with those whose claims to life and liberty are not necessarily recognized”. We all must cooperate or you must perish on the waysides.

What need do they have for anything resembling the United States once they have pulled the plug on our dollar? We know it is coming and any residual reliance on old glory may prove counterproductive. They are closing the book on the old Republic for those inattentive millions who still think it must somehow be alive and well if only they will keep waving their flags.

We’re going transnational/Resturcturing like it or not.