The Office of the Inspector General, whose task is to investigate IRS targets scandalI have rejected requests submitted under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Hill
regarding more than 500 correspondences between their office (known as TIGTA) and various Obama officials and players in the IRS scandal. Correspondent Bob Cusack reports on the latest stonewall:
The Obama administration is refusing to publicly release more than 500 documents about the IRS’s attacks on tea party groups. Twenty months after the IRS scandal broke, there are still many unanswered questions about who led the agency’s oversight of conservative organizations. The Hill has requested access to government documents that could provide insight into the decision-making process through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The Hill asked for 2013 emails and other correspondence between the IRS and the Treasury’s Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA). The request specifically sought emails from former IRS official Lois Lerner and Treasury officials, including Secretary Jack Lew, as the inspector general was working on his explosive May 2013 report that found the IRS used “inappropriate criteria” to review the political activities of tax-exempt groups. TIGTA has decided not to disclose any of the 512 documents covered by the requestciting various exceptions in the law. The Hill recently appealed the FOIA decision, but TIGTA denied the appeal. TIGTA also declined to comment for this article.
So in addition to the IRS “losing” and “accidentally” destroying certain communications related to this scandal, the IG’s office is also blocking access to documents that do exist. I discussed these latest developments with AB Stoddard
on Fox News earlier today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8iKLV4qDmM
Cusack’s Story lasts list the various reasons that TIGTA cites for refusing to issue everyone from 512 documents:
In its written response to The Hill, TIGTA cited FOIA exemptions ranging from interagency communications to personal privacy. It also argued that it could not release the relevant documents “when interference with law enforcement proceedings could reasonably be expected.” Still, Congress Republicans say there is no evidence of any criminal charges being brought against anyone, and media reports say the Justice Department and FBI have already decided not to file any charges.
Congressman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) notes that eight months after Lerner was found guilty of contempt of Congress for failing to appear at two hearings, the case has yet to go to a jury.
They point to concerns about “personal privacy.” If only the IRS had been as concerned about the privacy of conservative groups before leaked donor lists to hostile rival organizations. And if only the IRS were committed enough to privacy not to rehire hundreds of employees fired for legitimate reasons, including misuse of taxpayers’ private information. Alas, different rules. Another explanation offered is a “reasonable expectation” of impending criminal proceedings, of which there has been no sign so far. As I noted in this segment, one cannot lend a hand but wonder whether there is some connection between the lack of charges and the status of the leader of the Justice Department investigation as
Obama and Democratic Donor in multiple election cycles. On the one hand, there is no sign that any criminal investigations are imminent. On the other, the possibility that they will materialize is presented as a reason to reject transparency requests. It is a clever trick. If and when the administration is asked about it, it will undoubtedly fall back on its ancient playbook, directing reporters to the tens of thousands of documents it has made public, like these:
Last week, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said the IRS recently provided the panel with 86,000 pages of novel documents. Hatch added: “These documents … were provided to us without notice or explanation approximately twenty months after we made our initial request for the documents [on the targeting].”
You ask about a few hundred emails here, but look at the tens of thousands of other emails we posted without warning, almost two years after they were requested! And when it comes to dropping documents, who is to say that the most relevant or incriminating emails were not intentionally omitted, as was the case with the Benghazi cover-up? I should note that this lack of cooperation comes from the inspector general’s office, which is intriguing given the inspector general’s role as a watchdog for transparency. We don’t know enough to question anyone’s motives at TIGTA at this point—recall that Democrats launched a shameful attack on the inspector general’s credibility when the scandal was front-page news—but it’s not surprising that some Republicans are frustrated. It’s not as if GOP lawmakers haven’t questioned TIGTA’s practices in the past: When the IRS scandal broke, it eventually became clear that the IG’s office and elements of the Obama administration knew about the agency’s wrongdoings months before the 2012 election, but the scandal was effectively covered up until the spring of 2013. Let’s not forget, by the way, that the White House official history how, once they learned of the targeting practices, they changed about a half-dozen times before they finally settled on a response. It is also worth noting that a separate inspector general’s office faced withering criticism last year for a report on the VA scandal, the findings of which were apparently diluted as a result of political pressure from the Obama administration.
