Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CUMMINGS’ “MCCARTHYISM” CHARGE IN LERNER HEARING IS BOGUS
Human Events ^ | 4-18-2014 | M. Stanton Evans

Posted on 04/18/2014 8:32:48 AM PDT by smoothsailing

April 18, 2014

CUMMINGS’ “MCCARTHYISM” CHARGE IN LERNER HEARING IS BOGUS

M.Stanton Evans

Five plus decades after he left the national scene, Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-Wis) remains the target of inaccurate charges by leftward elements in Congress and the press corps.

The latest example in this vein is the uproar over IRS official Lois Lerner, who took the Fifth Amendment before the House Government Oversight Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), concerning hostile treatment of conservative groups seeking tax exemptions,. Having proclaimed her innocence of wrongdoing, Lerner then refused to discuss specifics, pleading possible self-incrimination.

This led Issa and his GOP colleagues to cite Lerner for contempt, causing an angry outcry by Maryland’s Elijah Cummings, ranking minority member of the Committee, and other Democrats on the panel. Cummings and Co. have denounced Issa for “McCarthyism,” linking the citation of Lerner to the alleged actions of McCarthy back in the 1950s.

Specifically noted by the Democrats and their media allies is the case of a McCarthy witness who likewise claimed the Fifth Amendment and got cited for contempt by vote of the US Senate. The witness, Diantha Hoag, had worked on defense-related projects for a government supplier, and thus got called in a McCarthy inquest into potential Soviet espionage at such installations.

Like Lerner, Hoag denied wrongdoing but then refused to answer questions about possible Red activity or people allegedly involved in espionage operations. For this refusal she was cited by the Senate for contempt and indicted by a US grand jury ,but eventually got acquitted in a Federal court decision.

This legal background has triggered an orgy of “McCarthyism” denunciations by House Democrats and media liberals, saying Issa by citing Lerner for contempt is following in the footsteps of McCarthy. Cummings condemns Issa for “efforts to re-create the Oversight Committee in Joe McCarthy’s image,” allegedly reverting to an era when sanctions for Fifth Amendment pleading were “a disgraceful stain on our nation’s history. “Various of his Democratic colleagues say the same.

The identical message has been pounded home by leftward press outlets. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post recites a litany of Democratic charges about McCarthyism redux under Issa (“brings us right back to the McCarthy era,” things not seen “since the days of Joe McCarthy.”) The Huffington Post references the case of Hoag, “when McCarthy attempted to compel her testimony through the courts,” and says Issa by his pursuit of Lerner could be “putting himself in the unsavory company of McCarthy.”

All of which, as the historical record shows, is a typical leftward mix of bias, ignorance, and bad reporting.

By far the most important thing to note about this “McCarthyism” ruckus is that it’s an obvious effort to obscure the real issue in the present day dispute: that Lois Lerner — and those above her – are stonewalling on the political abuses of the IRS, which Lerner herself has admitted were improper, and which she now argues may embroil her in a criminal prosecution.

Beyond this, the “McCarthyism” plaints of the Democrats and their press allies are inaccurate as to the history of the 1950s – no novelty in the polemics of the left. As it happens, in the case of Diantha Hoag it wasn’t McCarthy who pursued her in the courts, and in the upshot didn’t even vote to pursue her on the floor of the Senate. The contempt citation against her was in fact the work of Senate Democrats, who had the power to go after Hoag, or not, and made the decision to do so.

The reason for this seemingly strange turn of events was that between Hoag’s testimony to the McCarthy Committee (August 1954) and her official citation for contempt (February 1955), the Democrats won the mid-term elections of 1954, and thus took control of the Senate and its committees. McCarthy relinquished chairmanship of his committee to senior Senate Democrat John McClellan of Arkansas, who named as his chief counsel the Democratic Attorney-general-to-be, Robert F. Kennedy.

The new majority leader of the Senate, with the power to say yea or nay on contempt citations, was Democratic Sen. Lyndon Johnson of Texas (recently acclaimed by President Barak Obama as one of the great legislative geniuses in our history.)

Thus, when it came time to cite Diantha Hoag for contempt, the authority to do so rested not with Joe McCarthy, but with the Democratic power structure in the Senate. McCarthy as one of his final acts as chairman passed on the recommendation of his full committees that she be cited, but it was up to the Democrats to take official action. They would quickly decide to do so.

Accordingly, on February 4, 1955, Democratic Sen. Earl Clements of Kentucky, a top lieutenant to Lyndon Johnson and wheelhorse of the Democratic Party (chairman of its senatorial campaign committee) moved to cite Hoag officially for contempt, a motion adopted by voice vote with no dissent recorded. We know, however, that Joe McCarthy conspicuously didn’t vote for the motion, as his absence from the floor that day was explicitly noted by one of his colleagues.

It thus develops that the supposedly tremendous outrage from the 1950s being denounced by House Democrats as “McCarthyism” was chiefly the work of their own political party. So we have here a case exceeding the usual charges of hypocrisy in such disputes, as the Democrats not only did something similar to what they are deploring, but were responsible for the very act they now describe as evil.

From which it further develops that the “unsavory company” in which Darrell Issa finds himself today includes such eminent Democrats as Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, Earl Clements and John McClellan.

Of course, no one would expect liberal media outlets to know any of this, as that would require some familiarity with the subject matter and some study of the historical record. But one wonders how Rep. Cummings, a senior member of the House with legislative researchers at his disposal, could let himself be hung out to dry in such embarrassing fashion.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Politics/Elections; US: Arkansas; US: Kentucky; US: Maryland; US: Massachusetts; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: arkansas; danamilbank; darrellissa; demagogicparty; dianthahoag; earlclements; elijahcummings; humanevents; johnmcclellan; kentucky; loislerner; lyndonjohnson; maryland; massachusetts; memebuilding; mstantonevans; partisanmediashill; partisanmediashills; robertfkennedy; texas; washingtoncompost; washingtonpost
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

1 posted on 04/18/2014 8:32:48 AM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

M. Stanton Evans ping!


2 posted on 04/18/2014 8:33:57 AM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

And by bringing up that people were charged for doing EXACTLY the same thing in the 50’s they admit that this is EXACTLY how the law works.


3 posted on 04/18/2014 8:39:05 AM PDT by thorvaldr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

 photo oba_zpsbb83bb8e.jpg photo Lo_zpsc0fbe4f3.jpg

SMIDGENS

4 posted on 04/18/2014 8:39:55 AM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thorvaldr

When you are losing your case based on the factual information provided, argue the law.

When you are losing your case based on the law, argue the facts of the matter.

If both the law and the facts are against you, hammer your fist on the table and accuse your opponents of the very worst motives you can imagine.

And if Joe McCarthy had the worst motives you can imagine, then you are on very thin ice indeed.


5 posted on 04/18/2014 8:43:55 AM PDT by alloysteel (Selective and willful ignorance spells doom, to both victim and perpetrator - mostly the perp.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

McCarthyism: a correct assessment by a man, demonized by Democrats for the actions of the Democrat run HUAC.


6 posted on 04/18/2014 8:50:19 AM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Yo, Elijah! McCarthy was right.


7 posted on 04/18/2014 8:50:51 AM PDT by clintonh8r (Don't give up! The liberals are buggering and aborting themselves into extinction.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

An excellent piece by Evans.

No one can convince me that Elijah, his cronies and a good part of the leftist media don’t know the truth of this matter.

They are using the wrong and unfair label McCarthy has been hammered with over the years to besmirch Issa.

I doubt that it will work for them.


8 posted on 04/18/2014 8:52:32 AM PDT by jazusamo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

He’s going bonkers. Must be getting closer to the head honchos.....


9 posted on 04/18/2014 8:58:10 AM PDT by b4its2late (A Progressive is a person who will give away everything he doesn't own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Racist...Homophobe...
Now add McCarthyism to their vocabulary.

When liberals run out of ideas and rational responses,
they always resort to name calling.


10 posted on 04/18/2014 8:59:00 AM PDT by entropy12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

It’s further proof that Democrat success can be measured in large part by the ignorance of their supporters.


11 posted on 04/18/2014 8:59:08 AM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: All

12 posted on 04/18/2014 8:59:15 AM PDT by Hotlanta Mike ("Governing a great nation is like cooking a small fish - too much handling will spoil it." Lao Tzu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

13 posted on 04/18/2014 9:00:43 AM PDT by Hotlanta Mike ("Governing a great nation is like cooking a small fish - too much handling will spoil it." Lao Tzu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel

When my son was in high school (government school) he wondered why his American history teacher would spend five days ripping on Joe McCarthy. It seemed ridiculous to him when so many other historical topics were just breezed by or ignored

Then he figured it out. The democrat-run schools want to show kids it’s uncool to suspect that communists could be devious.

I’m still proud of him.


14 posted on 04/18/2014 9:01:51 AM PDT by duckworth (Perhaps instant karma's going to get you. Perhaps not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
Which party is now the one asking "are you now or have you ever been a member of the Tea Party?"
15 posted on 04/18/2014 9:14:28 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (Republican amnesty supporters don't care whether their own homes are called mansions or haciendas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
They haven't arrested his Lordship Elijah Cummings yet?

Oh, snap! That's right - "peasant law" doesn't apply to his Lordship.

16 posted on 04/18/2014 9:18:33 AM PDT by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

“ELIJAH” (sung to “Kaw-Liga was a wooden indian”)

Elijah was a lonely congressman standing by the door
He fell in love with an IRS maiden over in the Treasury store

Elijah - just stood there and never let it show
So she could never answer “YES” or “NO”.

[Chorus:]

Poor ol’ Elijah, he never got a kiss
Poor ol’ Elijah, he don’t know what he missed
Is it any wonder that his face is sad
Elijah, that poor ol’ man’s been bad.

Elijah was a lonely congressman never went nowhere
His heart was set on the IRS maiden with the coal black hair

Elijah - just stood there and never let it show
So she could never answer “YES” or “NO”.

(apologies to Hank Williams and Charlie Pride)


17 posted on 04/18/2014 9:32:47 AM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Well done.


18 posted on 04/18/2014 10:11:54 AM PDT by beelzepug ((you can't fix a broken washing machine by washing more expensive clothes in it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...
Thanks smoothsailing.
Specifically noted by the Democrats and their media allies is the case of a McCarthy witness who likewise claimed the Fifth Amendment and got cited for contempt by vote of the US Senate. The witness, Diantha Hoag, had worked on defense-related projects for a government supplier, and thus got called in a McCarthy inquest into potential Soviet espionage at such installations. Like Lerner, Hoag denied wrongdoing but then refused to answer questions about possible Red activity or people allegedly involved in espionage operations. For this refusal she was cited by the Senate for contempt and indicted by a US grand jury ,but eventually got acquitted in a Federal court decision... the “McCarthyism” plaints of the Democrats and their press allies are inaccurate as to the history of the 1950s – no novelty in the polemics of the left. As it happens, in the case of Diantha Hoag it wasn’t McCarthy who pursued her in the courts, and in the upshot didn’t even vote to pursue her on the floor of the Senate. The contempt citation against her was in fact the work of Senate Democrats, who had the power to go after Hoag, or not, and made the decision to do so.

19 posted on 04/18/2014 10:32:57 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

” Having proclaimed her innocence of wrongdoing, Lerner then refused to discuss specifics, pleading possible self-incrimination.”

That’s it in a nutshell. The contradictions are glaring. If she’s actually innocent, she has no need of fearing self-incrimination. If she has reason to fear self-incrimination; she lied in her opening statement — making her, at least, guilty of perjury.


20 posted on 04/18/2014 10:33:44 AM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson