The IRS scandal: Is a shocking new email the smoking cannon? |

The IRS scandal: Is a shocking new email the smoking cannon?

Whether or not it is the smoking cannon of the IRS scandal remains to be seen. But new revelations, ones that keep coming out in dribs and drabs, suggest that Lois Lerner might have conspired to obstruct justice in her agency’s efforts to improperly target conservative opponents of the Obama administration.

Ms. Lerner is the former head of the IRS’s Exempt Organizations division. Conservative groups appear to have been singled out to have their First Amendment rights quashed. And a new email released this week shows that, just as the targeting scandal was going public, she warned staffers “to be cautious about what we say in emails” because those communications could end up before Congress.

Worse, the email, dated April 9, 2013, suggests that the IRS thought it could employ instant messaging as an end around to subvert open-records laws.

Couple this new development with the IRS’s fantastical claims of hard-drive crashes that just happened to befall principals of this scandal, crashes that conveniently parallel the scandal’s timeline, and the stench now is overbearing. Thus, a scandal that long ago cried out for the appointment of a special prosecutor now is screaming at the top of its lungs. And failing to investigate an IRS (now under a federal judge’s order to come clean) that appears to be the definition of a corrupt criminal enterprise can only lead reasonable people to conclude that the enterprise is not limited to the IRS.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.