WASHINGTON - Like plaids with stripes, federal employees wrapped in the Fifth Amendment don't look good.
We all have the right to wear clothes that clash, and all in this country have the right not to provide testimony that could be used against them.
But when federal workers invoke that right, as Lois Lerner did at a House hearing Wednesday, it comes at a cost. A public servant who refuses to answer questions from Congress about the public's business clashes with the public's expectations.
By asserting her right, Lerner further undermined the credibility of her employer, the Internal Revenue Service, an agency whose reputation has been beaten bloody by the scandal over the targeting of conservative organizations.
It's not fair, but it is inevitable - and understandable - that Lerner's refusal to answer questions gives the impression that she has something to hide about her involvement in the targeting.
That's a tough spot for someone who has developed a reputation for fairness over nearly 35 years of federal service.
"I am very proud of the work that I have done in government," she said.
Ironically, Lerner, the IRS director of exempt organizations, seems to be the only one who tried to stop the targeting, which is not to say her hands are totally clean.
When she learned that IRS staffers were using inappropriate criteria, she "immediately directed that the criteria be changed," according to an inspector general's report.
Yet as she acknowledged, members of Congress "have accused me of providing false information" and The Washington Post's Fact Checker has awarded her four Pinocchios, signifying "whoppers" for "misstatements and weasely wording" in previous statements.
Actually, Lerner did testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing, but only through her prepared statement.
Her attorney, William W. Taylor III, tried to get her excused from the hearing because of an ongoing Justice Department criminal investigation, saying in a letter to the panel that having her appear "merely to assert her Fifth Amendment privilege would have no purpose other than to embarrass or burden her."
Lerner seemed more defiant than embarrassed.
Succeeding in having it both ways, she provided her side of the story but refused to answer questions, raising heated objections from at least a couple of Republicans.
"I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee," she said with emphasis.
"And while I would very much like to answer the committee's questions today, I have been advised by my counsel to assert my constitutional right not to testify or answer questions related to the subject matter of this hearing. . . .
"Because I'm asserting my right not to testify, I know that some people will assume that I've done something wrong. I have not. One of the basic functions of the Fifth Amendment is to protect innocent individuals, and that is the protection I'm invoking today."
Minutes later, she was gone.