7 thoughts on “The Lois Lerner Interview”

  1. I still believe it was a rather fair article. Flanked by lawyers, I don’t expect Lois Lerner to provide anything but fluffy comments about herself. But what I think others might miss is that Politico got this exclusive and for it, they managed to provide no new information. That is an epic fail. What so exclusive about information everyone already knew? Oh, I guess I didn’t know about Lerner stealing animals from those displaced by Hurricane Katrina, but I didnt really care because it is not important to why she is a news story.

    Anyway, I thought this was a much better story about the items missed by the Politico piece. It was a missed opportunity by Politico for sure.

    1. “they managed to provide no new information.”

      Good point!

      “That is an epic fail. ”

      Was it even possible to obtain new (and relevant) information in the interview’s setting? I think the story was mostly just fluff.

      1. Lerner claimed she didn’t learn about the scandal for two years despite her being deeply involved the whole time.

        ““How would I know two years ahead of time that it would be important for me to destroy emails, and if I did know that, why wouldn’t I have destroyed the other ones they keep releasing?””

        But the thing is that she knew what was going on during those two years because it was her department doing the work. Her hard drive died ten days after a congressman sent a letter to the IRS asking what was up with all the suspicious audits of donors to groups seeking non-profit status. The IG investigation of the suspicious audits revealed the other part of the scandal that non-Democrat groups were targeted for viewpoint based discrimination.

        As to why she didn’t keep on destroying emails as things went on, the emails show that she was taking preventative measures, and coaching other IRS officials to do the same, to avoid using words that would show up in searches, to avoid using incriminating language, and to use means of communications that were not subject to archiving or tracking.

        I am not sure how she can plead the fifth to prevent testifying in a court of law but then go out and testify in the court of public opinion. Pretty stupid of her lawyers to let her do the interview.

  2. they would have had a fantastic interview with a plethora of challenging moments that might have ended with Lerner’s lawyers shutting down the interview before it could end

    That assumes that Politico wanted to challenge Lerner, rather than cover for her.

Comments are closed.