Strassel: The IRS Scandal Started at the Top
The bureaucrats at the Internal Revenue Service did exactly what the president said was the right and honorable thing to do.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

Was the White House involved in the IRS's targeting of conservatives? No investigation needed to answer that one. Of course it was.

President Obama and Co. are in full deniability mode, noting that the IRS is an "independent" agency and that they knew nothing about its abuse. The media and Congress are sleuthing for some hint that Mr. Obama picked up the phone and sicced the tax dogs on his enemies.

But that's not how things work in post-Watergate Washington. Mr. Obama didn't need to pick up the phone. All he needed to do was exactly what he did do, in full view, for three years: Publicly suggest that conservative political groups were engaged in nefarious deeds; publicly call out by name political opponents whom he'd like to see harassed; and publicly have his party pressure the IRS to take action.

Mr. Obama now professes shock and outrage that bureaucrats at the IRS did exactly what the president of the United States said was the right and honorable thing to do. "He put a target on our backs, and he's now going to blame the people who are shooting at us?" asks Idaho businessman and longtime Republican donor Frank VanderSloot.

Enlarge Image

Getty Images
At the White House, President Obama addresses the IRS scandal, May 15.

Mr. VanderSloot is the Obama target who in 2011 made a sizable donation to a group supporting Mitt Romney. In April 2012, an Obama campaign website named and slurred eight Romney donors. It tarred Mr. VanderSloot as a "wealthy individual" with a "less-than-reputable record." Other donors were described as having been "on the wrong side of the law."

This was the Obama version of the phone call—put out to every government investigator (and liberal activist) in the land.

Twelve days later, a man working for a political opposition-research firm called an Idaho courthouse for Mr. VanderSloot's divorce records. In June, the IRS informed Mr. VanderSloot and his wife of an audit of two years of their taxes. In July, the Department of Labor informed him of an audit of the guest workers on his Idaho cattle ranch. In September, the IRS informed him of a second audit, of one of his businesses. Mr. VanderSloot, who had never been audited before, was subject to three in the four months after Mr. Obama teed him up for such scrutiny.

The last of these audits was only concluded in recent weeks. Not one resulted in a fine or penalty. But Mr. VanderSloot has been waiting more than 20 months for a sizable refund and estimates his legal bills are $80,000. That figure doesn't account for what the president's vilification has done to his business and reputation.

The Obama call for scrutiny wasn't a mistake; it was the president's strategy—one pursued throughout 2012. The way to limit Romney money was to intimidate donors from giving. Donate, and the president would at best tie you to Big Oil or Wall Street, at worst put your name in bold, and flag you as "less than reputable" to everyone who worked for him: the IRS, the SEC, the Justice Department. The president didn't need a telephone; he had a megaphone.

The same threat was made to conservative groups that might dare play in the election. As early as January 2010, Mr. Obama would, in his state of the union address, cast aspersions on the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, claiming that it "reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests" (read conservative groups).

The president derided "tea baggers." Vice President Joe Biden compared them to "terrorists." In more than a dozen speeches Mr. Obama raised the specter that these groups represented nefarious interests that were perverting elections. "Nobody knows who's paying for these ads," he warned. "We don't know where this money is coming from," he intoned.

In case the IRS missed his point, he raised the threat of illegality: "All around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates . . . And they don't have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation."

Short of directly asking federal agencies to investigate these groups, this is as close as it gets. Especially as top congressional Democrats were putting in their own versions of phone calls, sending letters to the IRS that accused it of having "failed to address" the "problem" of groups that were "improperly engaged" in campaigns. Because guess who controls that "independent" agency's budget?

The IRS is easy to demonize, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. It got its heading from a president, and his party, who did in fact send it orders—openly, for the world to see. In his Tuesday press grilling, no question agitated White House Press Secretary Jay Carney more than the one that got to the heart of the matter: Given the president's "animosity" toward Citizens United, might he have "appreciated or wanted the IRS to be looking and scrutinizing those . . ." Mr. Carney cut off the reporter with "That's a preposterous assertion."

Preposterous because, according to Mr. Obama, he is "outraged" and "angry" that the IRS looked into the very groups and individuals that he spent years claiming were shady, undemocratic, even lawbreaking. After all, he expects the IRS to "operate with absolute integrity." Even when he does not.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324767004578487332636180800.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0

He cannot really believe this? 

PIERS MORGAN, HOST: Final question, Jay Carney. Obviously the president made a big deal when he came into office of being not like previous administrations and was going to be much more transparent. The charge today after this week is that you have had that reputation for transparency pretty heavily dented. Do you accept that and just on a general picture, how are you going to move on now and restore perhaps faith that some Americans have lost this week in your openness and honesty?

JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Well, I'm not sure, again, you're concocting scandals here that don't exist, especially with regard to the Benghazi affair that was contrived by Republicans and I think has fallen apart largely this week. The fact of the matter is that we, that this administration has a record on transparency that outdoes any previous administration's, and we are committed to that. The president is committed to that.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1305/16/pmt.01.html

This completely contradicts your contention that the lack of security was the result of budget cuts.  It was not, as Lamb plainly says. 

I'm dealing with the facts.  Like these:

In testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, “Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”

Lamb responded, “No, sir.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/12/are-budget-cuts-to-blame-for-benghazi-attack-as-biden-suggested.html

This topic has been moved to V Board - General Random Threads.

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=479592.0

It has already been admitted by members of the Obama administration that the reduction in the budget for embassy security had nothing to do with the denial of requests for additional security in Benghazi.  

Yes, we likely had time to safe two of them, if immediate action was taken.  

Yes, they lied.  Hicks testified it was an attack.  The CIA said in their initial draft that it was Al Qaeda.  The administration inserted the word "demonstration," removed all references to Al Qaeda, and then tried to sell a demonstration as a result of a video.  That was an outright lie.  

Carney also lied when he said the only change they made was one word.  

Did you actually read the article you posted about the "doctored" emails?  

What about Ms. Lerner?

Democrat Crowley: IRS' Lerner Should Be Fired for Lying
Friday, 17 May 2013
By Christiana Lilly

Rep. Joe Crowley Friday all but accused Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner of lying to Congress about the agency's targeting of conservative groups and joined Rep. Sander Levin in calling for her immediate resignation or firing.

Crowley, a New York Democrat, said Friday on MSNBC's Jansing & Co. that Lerner "failed to answer the question" when she was asked at a Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee hearing last week if the IRS was investigating political 501 (c) (4) groups that had applied for tax-exempt status through the agency division she headed.

"She then two days later planted a question at a press event, only to then use that opportunity to apologize for what the IRS had been doing," Crowley continued.

He said he confronted her later and she denied that she had even been asked about the targeting effort at the hearing.

"The truth was, I had asked in Congress at a committee hearing two days earlier," Crowley said, adding: "If you're Miss Lerner, you're worried about your career right now."

Crowley and Michigan Democrat Levin, the top two members of their party on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, called for Lerner to resign, and failing that, to be fired for her conduct in trying to control fallout from IRS controversy, which has now turned into a full-blown scandal.

Crowley insisted, however, that the White House was not aware or involved in the targeting effort, citing the inspector general's report released earlier this week indicating it did not stretch beyond the tax collection agency.

Like Republicans, he said he was angry, too, but added that GOP lawmakers are wrong to claim that Obama knew about it or, even worse, had orchestrated it, much as Richard Nixon had done with the Watergate cover-up nearly 41 years ago.

"It’s about partisanship once again and trying to somehow link this to the White House. It’s the same old, same old, exactly what people are really angry about what is happening in Washington today," he said, criticizing the GOP.

"Really we should all be outraged by what took place. I am. No political entity ought to be investigated or gone after by the IRS."

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/crowley-irs-lerner-lying/2013/05/17/id/505096

The AG (and I think the president") said this leak "put the American people at risk."  Is he telling the truth? 

Questions raised over administration claim that AP leak put Americans at risk
Published May 17, 2013
FoxNews.com

WASHINGTON –  Americans were in danger.

That was the chief argument Attorney General Eric Holder tried to make this week for why Justice Department officials seized two months' worth of phone records of reporters and editors at The Associated Press.

But the AP has strongly refuted from the start claims that it put the country in danger. The accusation that the news organization risked national security isn’t sitting so well with other journalists and lawmakers who have started pushing back on the claims.

“We held that story until the government assured us that the national security concerns had passed,” AP President Gary Pruitt said in a written response to the Justice Department's claims.
A report from The Washington Post appeared to give more weight to the AP's claims. 

According to the Post, the AP had been sitting on a scoop about a failed Al Qaeda plot at the request of CIA officials for five days. The morning they were supposed to release the story, journalists were asked by government officials to wait another day, citing safety concerns.

However, the CIA officials who first cited the security concerns said they no longer had the same worries. Rather, the Obama administration was planning to announce the success of the counterterrorism project the following day, according to The Post report.

After a series of negotiations, the AP ultimately decided to publish. Months later, the Obama administration seized the phone records – home, work and cell -- of 20 AP reporters and editors.

The government says it was trying to hunt down the AP government source who leaked information about a top secret U.S. operation to thwart an Al Qaeda plan to blow up an airliner.
Holder said earlier this week that it was one of the most serious leaks he's encountered, and it put the American people "at risk."

One White House official told the Post that the reason the administration was planning to go public with the operation was because they knew the AP was planning a story.

But the argument doesn’t hold up, some say, because the day after it was released, the White House’s top counterterrorism adviser went on “Good Morning America” and talked about how successful the operation had been. John Brennan, now CIA director, praised the work of U.S. intelligence officials and said that the Al Qaeda plot was never an active threat to the American public.

Brennan’s comments seem to challenge the reason the government pressed the news organization to hold the story as well as Holder’s claims that the leak and published report endangered Americans.

On Tuesday, Holder defended the department’s secret examination of the AP phone records even though he went on to say he had recused himself from the case. He could not offer details on the investigation.

In all, the government pulled the April 2012-May 2012 telephone records from four AP bureaus including Washington and New York.

The department's actions angered many lawmakers and First Amendment groups.

Pruitt called the Justice Department’s actions “a massive and unprecedented intrusion.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/17/sources-say-cia-claims-that-ap-put-americans-at-risk-is-false/

I am crushed. 

Plus it's an interesting story.  And funny. 

If you don't like it, don't read it. 

It involves a potential unjust criminal prosecution, potential First Amendment issue, an issue of whether the law should be changed, etc. 

You said "that's the problem with you you don't deal with facts."  You mean facts like these?
 

Shaq won because of Wade.  He was a shell of his former self.  That championship was all Wade. 

Kobe needed Pau, but not necessarily Bynum.  Bynum was injured and didn't play for larges stretches during their championship run. 

You mean like these?  http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=441173.0

I know Lurker likes to quote himself.  Will save him a little trouble.   

This topic has been moved to General Topics.

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=479551.0

Question 6:  Why didn't the White House find the person in their own backyard who leaked info? 

Holding an umbrella over a grown man's head is not an honor.  If he was disabled or elderly, yes. 

Cutting and pasting from DU again.   

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022857236

Let's assume misleading storyline is true.  Still does nothing to answer the questions about why our people were not properly protected, why we didn't try and save them, who gave the stand-down order, and why the government repeatedly lied. 

Arrested?  Jail?  This is crazy.  Good thing I didn't grow up in Pennsylvania.   

Student faces charges for mooning girls
Fri May 10, 2013

CHESTNUT TOWNSHIP, Penn. -  A high school senior was banned from participating in graduation and faces criminal charges after mooning two eighth-grade girls, according to video from WBRE.

Larry Liero, 18, was escorted out of school in handcuffs after baring his buttocks to the girls as they toured Pleasant Valley High School, according to his father.

"I definitely was very upset with him," the father, Chad Liero, said.

The student was charged with disorderly conduct and open lewdness, a third-degree misdemeanor. The maximum penalty for that type of charge in Pennsylvania is one year in prison, WBRE said.

http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/free/20130510pennsylvania-student-mooning-charges.html

Of course not.  You don't have a clue why you're "calling for his impeachment."  lol  

I didn't vote for him.  Did you?  

Probably not.

Probably the most accurate one.

Oh shut the heck up.  You had Obama's penis firmly implanted in your mouth for the last four years.  You kneedpadded the man as much or more than anyone on this board.  Get the heck out of here with that disingenuous impeachment talk.   

Oh, and have a nice day.