Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Did Rep. Elijah Cummings Lie?
California Rep. Darrell Issa adjourned a House Oversight hearing after IRS official Lois Lerner pleaded the Fifth, refusing to answer even one of his questions about the IRS targeting conservative groups.
After 15 minutes, he gave up and said, “Seeking the truth is the obligation of this committee. I have no expectation that Miss Lerner will cooperate with this committee and therefore we stand adjourned.”
As soon as Issa closed the hearing, Democratic Oversight Committee Ranking Member Rep. Elijah Cummings said he wanted to make a “statement.”
When he realized Issa wasn’t going to let him make a statement in a hearing that was for the sole purpose of trying to get answers from Lerner about the IRS targeting, Cummings switched gears and said he wanted to ask a “procedural question.”
Cummings: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have a procedural question.
Notice that he’s sticking with that, instead of repeating that he has a statement.
Issa: We’re adjourned.
Cummings: Mr. Chairman, you cannot run a committee like this. You just cannot do this.
Oh, yes we can! If we’ve learned anything from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, you can run a committee just like this. And worse—Issa’s adjournment of the hearing was nothing compared to Reid’s refusing to allow Republicans to add amendments to the bill extending emergency unemployment benefits. It is nothing compared to Reid’s blocking bills from House Republicans to reduce federal regulations, allow for more energy independence, reform job training programs, help schools recruit good teachers, and scale back Obamacare.
Cummings: We’re better than that as a country. We’re better than that as a committee. I have asked for a few minutes to ask a procedural question.
But first you said it was a statement….
[Mic cut]
Cummings: And now you’re turning me off.
Issa: We are adjourned.
Cummings: The fact is I’m asking a question. I am a ranking member of this committee and I want to ask a question. What are we hiding? What’s the big deal? May I ask my question? May I state my statement?
Issa: We are adjourned, but the gentleman may ask his question.
Cummings: Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I have one procedural question and it goes to trying to help you get the information, by the way, that you just asked.
Oh really, well this should be helpful. It’s good to know Cummings wants to get to the truth of the IRS violating the rights of American citizens. Makes one wonder why he didn’t ask Lerner any questions.
Issa: What’s your question?
Cummings: No, let me say what I have to say. I’ve listened to you for the last 15 or 20 minutes. Let me say what I have to say.
Um, he is letting you say what you have to say. Didn’t you have a question? You said you had a question. Or is it a statement? You initially said you have a statement.
Issa: Miss Lerner, you’re released.
Cummings: But first I would like to use my time to make some brief points.
What? I thought you had a question. Or a statement. Now, you want to make some brief points? How far down the rabbit hole are we going to go with this?
Cummings: For the past year, the central Republican accusation in this investigation…
Okay, here we go, it’s about the Republicans. I see.
[Mic off]
Issa: We’re adjourned. Close it down.
Cummings: …has been that there was political collusion directed by or on behalf of the White House. Before our committee received a single document or interviewed one witness, Chairman Issa went on national television and said, and I quote, “This was the targeting of the president’s political enemies effectively, and lies about it during the election year.” End of quote.
Issa: Ask your question.
Cummings: If you will sit down, and allow me to ask the question…
You had your opportunity to ask your question, but you didn’t. You launched off in an attack on the chairman. You never intended to ask a question.
Cummings: I am a member of the Congress of the United States of America. I am tired of this. We have members over here each who represent between them 700,000 people. You cannot just have a one-sided investigation. There is absolutely something wrong with that. That is absolutely un-American.
Now, what exactly does he mean by “one-sided investigation”? This is important because if he means both Democrats and Republicans need to be participating in the investigation, then where are the Democrats? If anything, they have impeded the investigation, not participated in it.
Issa: We had a hearing. The hearing’s adjourned. I gave you an opportunity to ask a question. You had no question.
Cummings: I do have a question.
Issa: I gave you time…you gave speech.
Cummings: Chairman, what are you hiding?
Where did that come from? But, this is exactly what Cummings was getting to. The one-sided investigation comment now comes to light. The one-sidedness of the investigation has nothing to do with Democrats and Republicans both participating in the investigation of the IRS or with Cummings being able to make a statement, or ask a question, or make some brief points, but with the Republicans themselves being investigated. If Issa is going to question Lerner, then Issa must be questioned.
Off-Camera: He’s taking the Fifth, Elijah.
That person gets it—it’s not about getting to the truth of why Lerner is taking the Fifth; it’s about turning the tables on Issa and the Republicans and making them out to be the real threat—not a massive government willing to violate the rights of citizens for political power.
As for that procedural question, I never heard it. Did you? Of course not. That was a lie. The Democratic Party isn’t about seeking the truth. It’s about deflection, misdirection, and cover-up. If we don’t realize that, accept it, and fight it, we’re lost.
Published in General
You suggested indictment twice. What charge and who will indict? ·9 minutes ago
Well, first hold her in contempt. They can do that on their own. And if they have any real evidence, indict her for improper conduct in her role at the IRS.
After all, if there is no real evidence, why are we bothering? I’m presuming that they do have such evidence, however. Her taking of the Fifth may affect the legal prosecution against her, but it would prompt any ordinary person to suspect that they have other evidence to bring against her.
If you’re suggesting that they would need Justice Department cooperation to indict her, and that Eric Holder would never allow that (I’ve heard that elsewhere), you’re right – my plan would get lost in the corruption of DC.
KC,
I believe the point is the DOJ would have to indict her. What are the odds Eric Holder will do that?
For anyone who hasn’t seen this, it is well worth watching (3:21 at RCP).
Cummings is probably the sharpest Democrat in the House, and he reduces himself here to a raving maniac. It’s quite stunning to see him come unraveled here. The irony is that the person he has been vigorously defending caused it via her stonewalling.
Credit Issa, while acting within his legitimate prerogative, for closing the hearing, thus denying Cummings the spotlight for what would have otherwise been a more composed, effective (for the dems) on-the-record statement/ evening news soundbite.
Thanks, KC.
If Cummings was interested in the truth he’d be as disgusted by Lerner’s invocation of the fifth as Issa is.
That raises a wider legal question. Again, I’m not a lawyer. But it just seems odd to me that we can have such a politicized DOJ, such that Congress has no recourse if the DOJ simply doesn’t like the case. There has to be some constitutional remedy, isn’t there?
I want to say “writ of mandamus” but it would just reaffirm how much about the law I don’t know.
I am in favor of the House voting to hold her in contempt and ordering the Sergeant at Arms to detain her in the Capitol Police holding cell but now that I think about it, I would prefer they save this option for Holder himself.
Other than legislation? On current reading my guess would be no. Previously the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 legislation allowed for the appointment of an independent counsel/special prosecutor however that provision of the law expired in 1999 so baring that option:
Congressional Research Service: Independent Counsels, Special Prosecutors, Special Counsels, and the Role of Congress
The Hatch Act might be applicable here but I believe that also requires going through the DOJ.
Does anyone know who is empowered to grant immunity to Lerner, if they wanted to do so? Who makes that call? Is it DoJ?
First, to use what is becoming quite an old trope, if this had been the response from a Republican or, even better, Bush appointee doing this along with secret emails, the press and the left would be foaming at the mouth over the- quote:
“Complete disregard for the rights of the American people and that these Republicans are proving that they are above the law and are a power unto themselves. The president and his appointees need to be held responsible, removed for the good of America and power restored to representational governance.”
Instead we get the Congressional Black Caucus kvetching to their base to say, ‘imply’, the exact same thing… and being sycophants to liberal messaging but not the truth.
I had no idea State Senator R. Clayton (“Clay”) Davis was based on a real Baltimore politician.
Now, if Darell Issa could be a little less like this guy …
There’s an easier way to clean up the IRS. Defund them.
DC,
This doesn’t really require all the analysis. Cummings is a cheap Obama flak trying to throw a monkey wrench into Darrell’s investigation. This is impeachable stuff. The trail leads right back to the White House. BHO using the IRS this way makes Richard Nixon look like an Amateur.
Regards,
Jim