Democrats are trying to destroy IRS investigation
The way investigations work is that you start with lower level people and figure out a set of facts that you are certain about. You then move to the next level up the chain to see whether you can catch them in inconsistencies when you interview them. Catching people who have lied under oath creates leverage that can then be used to get additional information out of those individuals and so on up the chain of command. By Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) making public the initial interviews he makes it possible for those higher ups to know how to tailor their stories to prevent from being caught up in any inconsistencies. If the media had any integrity, they nail the Democrats for trying to destroy this investigation. Unfortunately, I am far from convinced that the media is really explaining exactly how releasing all these transcripts damages the investigation. From The Hill newspaper:
A senior House Democrat on Tuesday defied Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) by releasing a full transcript from the congressional investigation into the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups.
The more than 200 pages released brought few revelations, but represented an escalation in the increasingly bitter battle between Issa and Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the Oversight panel’s ranking member.
Issa had warned Democrats that releasing a full transcript would be “reckless,” and said Democrats were trying to shut the door on the Internal Revenue Service investigation by providing a “roadmap” for other officials who might be interviewed.
“Americans who think Congress should investigate IRS misconduct should be outraged by Mr. Cummings’s efforts to obstruct needed oversight,” Issa said in a statement after the transcripts were released. . . .
Labels: IRSgate
posted by John Lott at 11:24 PM
4 Comments:
Where are thr Benghazi transcripts?
This appears to be the pattern with regard to all the scandalous doings currently in the news. Either the investigators are doing a creditable job that threatens the Democrats involved, or the Democrats are trying to prevent a real investigation from getting started.
Time was, an officeholder who came under suspicion would demand a thorough formal inquiry, so his name would be cleared. (I recall former Speaker of the House Champ Clark in that connection.) No longer, I suppose; there's too much skullduggery at risk of exposure.
"When all the errors are in the bank's favor, you can be forgiven for suspecting that there's more at work than sloppy arithmetic." -- Me.
Issa made the original disclosures, not Cummings.
Dear Zachriel:
Do you understand the difference between selective disclosures and releasing the entire transcripts? You have to hold back some information so as to make the next stage of the investigation possible. Releasing some, but not complete information, can actually be an important part of the process.
Post a Comment
<< Home