Exclusive: Woman Who Asked IRS's Lois Lerner Scandal-Breaking Question Details Plant

[notadmblnd]

Source: US News

Exclusive: Woman Who Asked IRS's Lois Lerner Scandal-Breaking Question Details Plant
Lawyer says she was called directly by IRS official and given question

By Rebekah Metzler
May 17, 2013 RSS Feed Print

Comment (7)
inShare

Lois Lerner and Celia Roady.

Lois Lerner and Celia Roady.

The woman whose question prompted a top Internal Revenue Service official to admit the agency was inappropriately targeting conservative groups says she was contacted prior to the event that elicited the admission and was directed to ask the question.

[READ: Ousted IRS Director Miller: 'I Never Said I Didn't Do Anything Wrong']

Celia Roady, a prominent tax lawyer in the firm of Morgan Lewis, said she was called personally by Lois Lerner, the IRS head of the tax exempt division, on May 9.

"I received a call from Lois Lerner, who told me that she wanted to address an issue after her prepared remarks at the [American Bar Association] Tax Section's Exempt Organizations Committee Meeting, and asked if I would pose a question to her after her remarks," Roady said in a statement to U.S. News and World Report. "I agreed to do so, and she then gave me the question that I asked at the meeting the next day. We had no discussion thereafter on the topic of the question, nor had we spoken about any of this before I received her call. She did not tell me, and I did not know, how she would answer the question."

Acting IRS commissioner Steven Miller admitted to House lawmakers Friday during an oversight hearing of the controversy that the question was a plant. The IRS was aware of a forthcoming Treasury Department Inspector General Report that would condemn the targeting of groups applying for 501(c)(4) status if they contained the words "tea party," "patriot" or "9/12."

Read more: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/05/17/exclusive-woman-who-asked-irss-lois-lerner-scandal-breaking-question-details-plant

---

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2850558

[Buzz Clik]

1. There's nothing wrong with this. There was something wrong in the IRS.

finis

[notadmblnd]

4. You're right something is wrong in the IRS

It has been politicized to do Republicans dirty business.

[Buzz Clik]

5. All scandals are politicized. All of them.

[notadmblnd]

7. I know. But the IRS is not supposed to be political

I am saying that someone in the IRS is working for Republicans to discredit this administration. I'd like to know, just who the republicans are that are pushing these "scandals". Who did Lois Lerner take her marching orders from? Why did Lerner want that question asked at the meeting she attended when it was not the forum for for such a question?

[Buzz Clik]

9. Seems a little complicated and conspiratorial.

It's more likely that a) someone in the IRS group, perhaps a Republican, objected to what was being seen and started contacting political groups, or b) the GOP intentionally swamped the IRS with bogus "Tea Party" requests for tax exemption know that they would be delay or rejected and could be used as fuel.

It's also quite possible that it was obvious to everyone that the office had become nonfunctional and needed correction.

[notadmblnd]

12. And we all know there's no such thing as conspiracies, right?

“Just two days prior to the planted question, Lerner was given an opportunity to address the situation at a House subcommittee hearing, but said nothing about any wrongdoing.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/17/lawyer-says-irs-question-was-planted/

[Buzz Clik]

24. Clearly the GOP Congressional delegation conspired to make a big deal out of this.

So, yes, conspiracies exist, but not everything is a conspiracy.

[Doctor_J]

48. Really? Please point me to the thousands of links about the IRS investigating

liberals groups. Those investigations happened too. I can't seem to recall the scandal or the resulting political firestorm. Help me out here.

[timdog44]

10. What is wrong with this?

Last edited Sat May 18, 2013, 12:50 PM - Edit history (1)

If she wanted to be a whistle blower, then blow the whistle and take the consequences. And if she thought something was wrong it was her duty to change the way things were being done.

The other thing wrong with this whole thing is, everyone applying for this unethical, immoral tax exempt status, should have been queried. And the donors names should be made known. There is everything wrong with this 501(c)(4).

The other thing wrong with this is, at what rate were the supposed conservative groups being investigated as to the number of supposed liberal groups? That has not come out as far as I have seen, and would guess when is does, the numbers will be the same.

[brush]

44. Many of the groups targeted wanted tax exempt status . . .

Last edited Sun May 19, 2013, 09:35 PM - Edit history (2)

. . . but what comes with that is the requirement that they do no political endorsements. Well just about everyone knows that the exact opposite is the case with the Teaparty groups, or Rove's group. They were partisan as hell and were BREAKING THE LAW.

The administration should have stood their ground and explained the reason for the scrutiny of these groups. Seems this Louise Lerner is a repug stooge working with others to damage the President.

[timdog44]

46. That is what I thought.

The only person that should have been let go was Lerner. Did not do her job and then squealed about it. The old one finger pointing away but 4 pointing back.

[24601]

22. Speaking as a career civil servant, I must disagree that there's nothing wrong with this. At a

minimum, Ms. Lerner acted out a scenario where she, for reasons not apparent, concealed her agenda that someone in the IRS (perhaps her there is insufficient to make that call) intended to disclose IRS actions relative to organizations attempting to document/confirm their 501c(4) status.

Why?

The honest and transparent course of action (as the President has stated is supposed to be the standard) would have been to provide the information without pretending it was solicited.

All she had to do was volunteer what the IRS had done to organizations dealing with the Tax Exempt Division, affirm that it should not have happened; and, explain what procedures are being implemented to prevent recurrence. She could have admitted (presuming it's true) that the IRS was coming forward because it was documented in an IG report approaching release.

Instead, her manipulation she is caught coordinating a subterfuge that there may be something else not being disclosed. Now we are left to infer that she pursued a hidden agenda and to speculate that we are standing by waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Last observation - this isn't dealing with any national security information requiring protection because unauthorized disclosure would harm the nation. It involves wholly unclassified actions that affect the relationship of we the government to we the people.

[Buzz Clik]

25. Just because we do not like what she did and how she did does not make her actions wrong.

I agree that we can ask all sorts of questions about the protocols she avoided, inferences made, and hidden agendas. But, the bottom line is that the IRS screwed the pooch, and she threw a spotlight on their actions.

[24601]

43. It's really that the Treasury Report IG was going to reveal it and she moved to get ahead of the

report. I see no problems, ethically or strategically or whatever, getting bad news on the street before release of the report. She doesn't get "special honesty point"s for releasing information that she knew was going to come out - it's perfectly fine, even smart, to release (unclassified/not protected by Privacy Act*, etc) information that reflects poorly on your organization.

But to then go about it in a way to deceive people about the mechanics of the release creates a brand new ethical lapse - an unforced error that undercuts the President's transparency message. I don't see any legal violation, but the standard has to be higher than "didn't break the law".

* writing this reminded me that I completed my annual Privacy Act training this past week. It's one of about 10 mandatory annual classes.

[brush]

45. What about the requirment that these 501c(4) groups do no political endorsements?

Just about everyone knows Teaparty groups and Rove's group do plenty of political endorsements, and funding even of candidates. Sounds like THEY WERE BREAKING THE LAW and the administration should have stood it's ground and explained that was the reason for the scrutiny.

And by the way, liberal groups have been targeted this way for years. It's quite possible Lerner is a repug stooge out to damage the President. At one time our mainstream media would have written about this or done exposes on the air of how these groups were breaking the prohibition that goes with 501c(4) status but much of our media is now corporate-owned and complies with the repug agenda.

[brush]

47. You're wrong

The groups that sought tax-exempt status can not then endorse or fund political candidates. The Teaparty and Rove's group and the Koch brothers' groups were all doing exactly that. They were breaking the law.

See this other post on DU. See what a judge thinks:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022867019

[BREMPRO]

2. huh? this is just too strange to understand... wtF! explanation??

[zeemike]

3. Just remember, there is no such thing as a conspiracy.

and so no one suggest such a theory please.

[timdog44]

11. Correct.

Last edited Sat May 18, 2013, 12:50 PM - Edit history (1)

And the conspiracy is not to take the IRS out the Affordable Care Act administration. sarcasmy thingy

[Berlum]

6. Sniff - Sniff - Sniff

Something smells pretty damn stanky in this whole damn Republican-orchestrated so-called "IRS scandal"

[rdharma]

8. Things that make me say........hmmmmmmmm!

Strange that the IRS didn't target Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS and the Koch's Americans for Prosperity!

I'll bet the IRS will really be hesitant to do that now that they're under scrutiny for targeting smaller RW 401 (c)s!

I wonder if that was the plan?

Oops! There I go again with my suspicious mind!

[okaawhatever]

28. I've read on Crooks and Liars where Rove said he has gotten about 25 letters from the irs and ignore

s them. I think the IRS is in between a rock and a hard place with this. It still goes back to the fact that they're working with law that doesn't support a clear definition and a clear course of action. Something so politically volatile needs to have very specific definitions and very specific punishment. Congress needs to take responsibility for not giving better guidance. They should have re-visited the law once scotus ruled on CU.

[rdharma]

33. Gee, I visit the Crooks & Liars blog quite often and have seen no such thing........

Got a link to that?

[okaawhatever]

36. Here: It's from back in January, I think this is the one. They have been watchiing this way b4 now

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/former-irs-director-shadowy-nonprofits-inve

[rdharma]

39. Thanks, but .... there's not any ACTUAL IRS action taken!

That's just an op-ed by a FORMER IRS employee who is suggesting what should be done. And there's no mention of Karl Rove receiving any sort of inquiries from the IRS.

No audit of the Crossroads GPS took place.

[okaawhatever]

41. I never said an audit took place, just that crossroads had received letters from the irs probably

asking for additional information. This may not be the article but with all the new ones I can't find it. In the article Rove was quoted as saying that when beng questioned.

[rdharma]

42. I don't know how you can "ignore" a letter requesting additional information from the IRS. eom

Last edited Sat May 18, 2013, 05:40 PM - Edit history (1)

[Botany]

13. She just happens to be out of the country and she has lawyered up too

Lois G. Lerner, who managed the IRS exempt organizations unit that approved applications for nonprofit status, is in Montreal, according to her attorney, a congressional source said, and has not yet said if she will come to Washington for testimony next week. Lerner has hired William W. Taylor III, the lawyer who represented Dominique Strauss Kahn, the former International Monetary Fund head accused of sexual assault by a New York hotel housekeeper, the source said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/lois-lerner-irs-tea-party_n_3288579.html

I wonder if she is a republican?

[notadmblnd]

14. Someone here said that she was a Bush appointee

She had an opportunity to provide this information two days before she had the question planted- at a congressional hearing. There's a video of her testimony posted up thread in a link to the Washington Post.

[Botany]

18. I don't know if the President appoints people @ her level to the IRS but the ....

.... commissioner that hired her or put her into her position might very well
have been a w appointee. I hope this story gets covered because something
here sure doesn't pass the smell test.

[notadmblnd]

27. No, Bush did not appoint her. Bush appointed the guy that selected her for that position

[mainer]

19. She is a Bush appointee

Funny thing is, the Daily Caller is trying to link her husband's law firm to the Obama campaign, yet another conservative site is saying that that particular law firm actually has strong GOP ties.

So I think Obama should call for another soldier to fall on her sword: notably, Lois Lerner. And he should say that the GOP demands it!

[okaawhatever]

38. I'm the one that said that based on an article I read early on. It said the position was new I

believe or something to that effect. The article I read was referring to a time when Bush was under fire for IRS antics and I believe it said that in response to the criticism he had appointed her to make sure the process was fair or something like that. It may not have been a new position, but there was something about her getting the job that referred to Bush and Lois Lerner and that she was going to oversee things to make sure they ran fairly. I believe she was an attorney from d o j so that may have been the angle. Maybe there was a regular accountant type in the position before. I tried to go bac k to the article but now there are so many pages of new articles I can't find it.

[okaawhatever]

29. I've read she's a dem, but alot of that was old info. She is a civil servant and had been with two

different agencies one of them was doj i think. S

[FairWinds]

15. The U.S. has got to be . . .

the only country in the world in which foreign individuals and corps are legally able to spend money in its elections.
Trust me, it's happening.
All because of the anonymity afforded by 501(c)(4) status.
Where is the outrage?

[DallasNE]

17. Sheldon Adelman

Pumped $100 million into the last campaign and while he is an American over half of his income comes from foreign sources so one could argue that over $50 million of that is foreign money. Same with so many of the other high rollers in this game. Foreign sources could well account for 20% of what is being spent on our federal elections.

[okaawhatever]

30. Adelmam made enough money in the us to pay for those election dollars BUT I say that because he has

20 Billion overseas supposedly that he's made from casinos in China. If he brings it into the us he'll have to pay about 2B in taxes so his spending even 1Billion on a campaign would be nothing if he could get a pres who would change tax laws. That's what's really f$ed. also, his wife supposedly owns a drug rehab clinic here and in Israel. That org gave 25million. I'm wondering if she's making that kind of money or if it was pass-through bucks.

[DallasNE]

16. What Is The Timeline On Events Here

When did the change get put in to look for names like "tea party" in the selection review process and when did it end. Did it end when it was caught in the IG probe or did internal IRS review result in it ending prior to Treasury writing it up. If the IRS made this change on their own who approved this and who approved the initial change to the selection review process. This plant is an obvious attempt to get this news out before the IG probe was released. I haven't seen anything that addresses the timeline for each of these events. Also, what other changes were made to the selection review process and why haven't we heard anything about those.

The other thing this shows is that following the Citizens United decision the number of these groups has gone up several hundred percent yet the IRS budget was cut each year, showing the sheer stupidity of Republican policy with this being the predictable result. Government failure is official policy of the Republican Party and this shows how they can accomplish that.

[mainer]

20. Instead of dredging up scandal, why wasn't she fixing things?

Wasn't it her job to say within the agency "this isn't right and this stops now"? Instead she chose to announce the issue to the press.

[John1956PA]

21. I disagree with the clause "the agency was inappropriately targeting conservative groups."

As I understand it, the IRS appropriately targeted applications submitted by groups from both ends of the political spectrum, right and left, for heightened scrutiny to assure that the primary purpose of the groups was not political in nature. As another DUer has pointed out, the term "targeting" does not mean singling out.

What the IRS apologized for was the method of targeting conservative groups. That method involved using certain conservative groups' names or bywords as the criteria for review. However, liberal terms may have been used as the criteria for pulling up liberal group’s applications for heightened scrutiny. The IRS had not yet answered that question.

Moreover, the IRS has denied that 501(c)4 applications from conservative groups were subjected to heightened scrutiny just because of the groups' ideology.

[John2]

26. That is what I'm saying.

Even the IG report whichever agency did it should be thoroughly examined and the methodology they used to make such a politically charged assertions. The best people to do are statisticians and research experts. What was the purpose of the IG's report and what was it focused on? Was it the purpose of the IG report to look for discriminatory practices of Tax exempt groups?

A study like that takes time because of certain rules needed to be followed. You cannot just assume discrimination if there were more conservative groups applying for Tax exempt status than Liberal groups. That is why you need to examine the methodology the IG or IRS used to make such a charge. That is why Miss Lerner's actions matter a lot if she was politically motivated herself. How normal is it for an IRS official to plant negative questions against her own office? How often does the IRS come out and issue an apology to certain groups versus defending their actions? Miss Lerner should be called to Congress and answer questions about this. I also think it is imperative, the lower level employees need to be heard too instead of officials sweeping this under the rug. We need to know the chain of command of these lower level employees. I'm hoping the DOJ does this rather than the Republican Congress. I think Miss Lerner should also be questioned by the DOJ if she had any political motivations and if someone put her up to this? And just like they are asking the investigators on Benghazi, I think the DOJ needs to examine the IG investigators and get a full understanding of their procedures and how they came to certain conclusions in their Report. I want to know what period in time they did this report and their methods.

[John1956PA]

31. You and I agree 100%. As an aside, here is my LTTE of yesterday to a local newspaper.

Yesterday, May 17, the online version of a local newspaper published a slanted poll which might be described as a "push" poll. The the poll question began, " It appears the IRS has targeted conservative nonprofit groups for extra scrutiny because they disagree with President . . ." The poll asked how that activity by the IRS made the reader feel. The three choices the reader could select from to answer the poll were: "Outraged", "Afraid", and "Disappointed."

In my letter to the editor, I wrote the following:

"Slanted" is the term to describe the News' May 17 poll regarding the IRS's heightened scrutiny of applications for non-profit status submitted by certain organizations.

Is has not been proven that applications submitted by conservative groups were singled out. The preliminary indications are that political groups from both ends of the spectrum, liberal and conservative, were targeted for heightened scrutiny, since an organization is required to limit its political activities if Section 501(c)4 non-profit status is to be granted.

An IRS spokesperson apologized for the method of targeting conservative groups. That method involved using certain conservative groups' names or bywords as the criteria for review. However, liberal terms may have been used as the criteria for pulling up liberal group’s applications for heightened scrutiny. The IRS had not yet answered that question.

Regardless, there has been no indication by the IRS that applications from conservative groups were subjected to heightened scrutiny just because of the groups' ideology.

[ewagner]

23. Let me get this straight...

Te IRS knew that 501(c)(4)s were problematic because of the Citizens United ruling...the words in the code say "exclusively" for charitable causes but Citizens United Clouded that...there was confusion.

In the meantime, the IRS also knew that Karl Rove and his Crossroads GPS was abusing the hell out of the system....and..

The leadership of the Tea Party "movement" (not sure if it's Americans for Prosperity or Tea Party Patriots) was advising all Tea Party locals to register as (c)(4)'s....

IRS is flooded with (c)(4) applications....

so if your the IRS, how do you maximize your search for (c)(4) abuses?...what's the first "dead give-away" that it's a political organization masquerading as a community service/educational organization?

How 'bout anybody using the name of their parent political organization? Would that be a good place to start.

It smells, ...sure it does....but I think what smells worse is the abuse of the system by the Tea Party and their conservative leaders.

[cynzke]

34. 501(c)(4)s

Absolutely, these groups were encouraged to apply as 501(c)(4)s rather than political groups (527s) BECAUSE donations received by c4s are TAX EXEMPT and these groups do not have to reveal THEIR DONORS (527s have to make their donors public record). Gee why would anyone want to keep their donors a secret....GET IT? The IRS was trying weed out suspicious applications...that is groups containing names that we associate with POLITICAL GROUPS. You know that old saying "where there's smoke there's fire? I think some in the IRS took that adage seriously and focused on (targeted) applications that were suspicious due to the NAMES. Was it wrong to focus on conservative groups...YES. Were they deliberately trying to hold these applications up purely for political motives? So far the investigation says NO...it was about being too gung ho on trying to weed out primarily suspicious applications out of thousands the IRS had to review. They took the expedient route focusing on names. At least at this point, that's what it appears to me.

[John1956PA]

37. I agree with your analysis that the IRS "took the expedient route focusing on names."

As an aside, I would point out that I agree with other DUers who suspect that the IRS also targeted applications from groups from the political left which had names such as "Democratic" or used bywords such as "progressive."

[okaawhatever]

32. Part of the problem we have with this is the bogus hearings in congress. Their questions are very

specific and slanted in such a way as to give a predictable outcome. They aren't allowing for explanations. Truth is the dems have no reason to do this. The tp isn't threatening to primary out candidates. In Kentucky the dems looked at backing a tp candidate for Mitch McConnell. It would have made it a three way race and allowed a dem a chance. And you know that Ron Paul's son-in-law or grandson-in-law joined the McConnell campaign. There's already been a story about how McConnell's out of the woods now that he is seen as coming to the defense of the tea party. You want a conspiracy, i'd look at McConnel's camp.

[rdharma]

35. And what is that "predictable outcome"? eom

[marshall]

40. Lois Lerner snitched on herself

I guess her conscience or what have you got the better of her.