Lois Lerner Doesn’t Trust You

That’s quite an argument. So enraged would the American public become upon learning what Ms. Lerner and Ms. Paz said that they and those around them would be in physical peril. Which probably makes most people wonder what the heck must the two have said that would get everyone so agitated?

The Washington Times, which broke the story, notes this is not the first time Ms. Lerner has sought to keep the public in the dark about her actions. In 2014, when asked to testify before Congress about the IRS targeting, she declared her innocence—and then invoked her Fifth Amendment right to keep quiet.

Even this latest request to federal Judge Michael Barrett is a follow-up to one she made back in May. At the time, Judge Barrett said he saw good reason to limit access to the attorneys during discovery. But he also said that the parties could eventually ask that it be made public—the Cincinnati Enquirer has also asked for the seal to be lifted—and the burden would be on Ms. Lerner and Ms. Paz to prove why it shouldn’t.

It’s hard to see what that case would be. By contrast, what a crippling precedent it would be if government officials from powerful agencies such as the IRS were permitted to keep their abuses secret on grounds they fear that the people whom they are supposed to serve might be upset if they found out.

There can be good reasons to keep a deposition sealed, from ensuring the privacy of the innocent to protecting the life of a mafia informant. But Ms. Lerner is no innocent. Indeed, given all the falsehoods that have been spread in an effort to whitewash what the IRS had done, the case for transparency becomes even more compelling here.

On the flip side, the evidence for fear seems overblown. Ms. Lerner and Ms. Paz cite Mark Meckler, a tea party leader whom they say stoked feelings against them by calling IRS workers “thugs” and saying “we’re going to have a lot of fun abusing these government employees.”

Mr. Meckler told the Times he’s not impressed. “Four years of harassing innocent American citizens for their political beliefs, and she’s scared of a guy in a cowboy hat talking to a bunch of little, old ladies at a tea party event?” And if her fears are legitimate, aren’t there other ways of protecting her?

In 2015, the Obama Justice Department declined to prosecute, explaining in a letter to Congress it “found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt or other inappropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution.” But when Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced settlements of two lawsuits last month, he confirmed the IRS during the Obama years had targeted organizations for political beliefs and not bad behavior.

In some senses, this battle is because Congress did not do its job. It started down the right path when it held hearings, but once Ms. Lerner invoked the Fifth, then-Speaker John Boehner blinked. Instead of using Congress’s own powers—including its right, after she was found in contempt, to jail her until she talked—he settled for passing the buck to the Obama Justice Department with a recommendation for a prosecution everyone knew would never come.

Congress is still paying for that dereliction of duty. The various House and Senate investigations have been frustrated by lack of cooperation from relevant parties, including federal agencies such as the FBI. Surely Republicans investigating everything from Hillary Clinton’s emails to Russia’s mischief in the 2016 elections would today enjoy far more cooperation from the relevant parties had they exercised their full authority in the Lerner case. If we ever hope to restore the accountability the Constitution built into the system and avoid the corrupting habit of turning to special prosecutors, Congress is going to have to get serious about its authority as a coequal branch of government.

Meanwhile, in this case the plaintiffs, the government and a newspaper all say they are for disclosure. Is a judge really going to buy Ms. Lerner’s argument that the American people can’t handle the truth?