After noting that we now know that the IRS policy to give extra scrutiny to certain groups was put in place at the behest of the IRS Chief Council William Wilkins one day after he met with someone at the White House (whether White House staff or the president himself is not known), a meeting which, according to another federal atttorney could have no innocent explanation, James Taranto remarks:
As this column has argued before, the higher this scandal goes, the better it is for the country. We say that not because we don’t care for Barack Obama–let’s be honest, a President Biden would be no bargain either–but because the president can be held accountable if it turns out he or his top aides essentially instructed the IRS to steal the 2012 election. A corrupt administration can be dealt with, as Richard Nixon’s was 40 years ago.
By contrast, if career IRS employees acted on their own, it means the integrity of American democracy itself is threatened by an out-of-control administrative state. In that case, how to solve the problem is not at all clear.
I don’t share Mr. Taranto’s zest for impeachment but I think I can propose a way to to deal with an “out-of-control administrative state”. We need to change the incentives and one way to do that is to remove the protections that shield federal employees from suit unless the employees in question can demonstrate that they were acting in accordance with the law and policy (in which case the problem is higher up). Just acting in good faith is not enough. Ignorance of the law should be no more exculpatory for government employees than it would be for you or me.
As in similar cases, my instinct is to let the process take its course. In this instance the process includes the ongoing Congressional investigation. I presume that Republicans think that they’ve found the “smoking gun” while Democrats think that the investigation is a “witch hunt”. I think the truth is probably somewhere in between but there does appear to be more “there” there than IRS officials claimed when the matter first came to light.
If I were forced to take a position or make a prediction it would be one I’ve mentioned before: I think the president is ill-served by his subordinates.
I agree. The Republicans appear willing to play the role of “useful idiots” for those of us who consider integrity more valuable than partisan scoring, so let them loose on the Administration and see what happens.
I also wonder if you might be giving the President too much benefit of doubt. After 4 1/2 years observing him I’ve concluded he is a psychopath who believes no meaningful limits on his power exist or should exist. An emperor-president in the mold of Nixon.
Ben,
“Useful idiots?” I hardly think so. But, neither do I think any of this will rise to the occasion of impeachment proceedings.
Impeachment would be a disaster, but political neutering a godsend.
I would be shocked if the president was not more aware, and not just “ill-served.” Notice he hasn’t taken any action. Just words. Empty words. Best case: not involved, but doesn’t give a damn.