Early last week, the president of the United States – Ohio State graduates called “reject” the “cynical” voices of those who warn against government abuses and tyranny. He gave this advice on May 5. Less than two weeks later, his administration is engulfed in scandal. Stoking the fire is evidence that the executive branch is using the levers of government to intimidate political opponents and covertly monitor the free press. These revelations are uniquely suited to stoke the very kinds of concerns that the president has tried to downplay and marginalize in Columbus. At the risk of falling into cynicism, let’s analyze the latest developments in all four parallel scandals:
(1) The IRS intentionally targeted conservative groups in two election cycles – The IRS story is falling to pieces. When Lois Lerner revealed Friday that the agency had used “inappropriate” investigative tactics against conservative organizations, she said the practice involved (a) the actions of “low-level” operators in Cincinnati and (b) was not politically motivated. None of the assurances were true. As Katie pointed out this morning, Washington Post Office he learned that IRS officials in three other locations were also involved in the scheme, including Washington, D.C., where the entire enterprise may have originated. “IRS workers in Cincinnati said this to conservatives seeking ‘welfare’ group status. task force in Washington supervised their applications, Lent reported last night. Highlight mine.
ProPublica — nonprofit investigative journalism center — announced that the same IRS department responsible for erroneously auditing right-wing organizations also leaked to them confidential documents from nine different conservative groups. Mary Katharine Ham prepares a summary about at least four other recent cases in which sensitive and private tax records of conservative-leaning organizations were mysteriously leaked to the press and hostile liberal groups. The suggestion that this was not motivated by political bias is ridiculous and offensive.
As for the question “who knew what and when?” timeline, the original story completely fell apart: politicized surveillance began in
March 2010 (just as the national debate over Obamacare was coming to a head, coincidentally) and the aforementioned Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division responsible for tax-exempt groups, discovered what was going on in 2011. So does the IRS’s chief tax assessor. This practice continued until 2012 (the year of the presidential election) when acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller became conscious practices. Miller’s predecessor, Douglas Shulman, had he testified under oath a few months earlier that such targeting had not taken place (video HERE). Miller then”repeatedly failed to inform Congress“About what he knew, according to Related press. It also appears that the IRS was also looking into certain pro-Israel organizations. This is current quote With Policy history on this matter:
Z Street filed a lawsuit against the IRS in 2010, alleging that one of her attorneys was told her tax-exempt application was delayed and sent to a “special unit… to determine whether the organization’s activities are contrary to the Administration’s public policy.“
President Obama said yesterday that he and the rest of the country learned about the Internal Revenue Service abuses from media reports. But administration spokesman Jay Carney he told reporters White House counsel was thrown into the loop more than three weeks ago. Didn’t anyone tell the president? Are we expected to believe this? This saga is far away far
from aboveand may have real political legs and draws resentment from it commentators who are usually very protective of the administration.
(2) The Obama administration changed the Benghazi talking points to mask failures and mislead the public about the terrorist attacks – There is no doubt that (a) the White House’s false claims have been revised 12 times(b) that senior State Department officials were concerned that the original talking points would be exact it can make them look badand (c) the final changes have been made wa White House meeting September 15.useless“The finished product was rejected by the then-CIA director and deemed “stunning” and “embarrassing” by Ambassador Stevens. deputy commander in Libya. Despite black and white evidence to the contrary, both the president and spokesman Jay Carney continue to claim that the White House was not involved in any substantive changes to the “official” version of the story, which they still believed was based on ” “best assessment” by the intelligence community at the time. Both of these statements are patently false. Last November, that’s what Carney did he told reporters: :
The White House and Department of State clarified that the only correction made by either of the two institutions on these matters was to change the word “consulate” to “diplomatic mission” because the term “consulate” was wrong.
He hedged a bit on Friday, leaving open the possibility that the state – but certainly not the White House – has dirtier hands than he previously let on. Yesterday, a State Department spokesman (who may seem familiar) once again frantically delegated responsibility, repeatedly placing all responsibility for the topics discussed on the CIA:
“These were CIA points. They were edited by the CIA. They were finalized by the CIA.“
This is profound dishonesty. The CIA presented finalized talks with the administration that joined check and pristine them a dozen times, and many of the most politically calculated changes were triggered by influential figures in the State Department. The original rating represented the best intelligence. The finished product was unrecognizable. Blaming this on the CIA is shameless and risky proposal. And the president is playing with fire with false claims about his own sincerity; has just been awarded Four Pinocchios By Washington Post Office for the statement regarding Benghazi he made at yesterday’s press conference.
(3) Obama’s Justice Department secretly monitored the telephone records of dozens of journalists for months – With the mainstream media busy covering the previous two scandals, Monday’s bombshell couldn’t have come at a worse time for the White House. Since this is a blatant insult to press freedom, journalists are likely to take it personally. Indeed, many members of the Washington press corps are friends with the reporters and editors whose work they do and personal phone records were quietly deleted by the federal government. Gasoline, meet fire. It appears the Justice Department’s goal was to identify and connect administration leakwhat they wanted to achieve by resorting to “massive and unprecedented interference” in the activities of a very wide range of journalists – who, by definition, are not the ones who leak. The “Related Press” list explains why the Department of Justice’s decisive and secretive action in this case was exceptional:
The Justice Department sets strict rules for obtaining phone records from news organizations. The rules say a subpoena can only be processed after “all reasonable attempts” have been made to obtain the same information from other sources. It was unclear what other steps the Justice Department might have taken to obtain information in the case. The media call must be “as narrow as possible” and “should concern relevant information on a limited subject matter and should cover a reasonably limited period” according to the rules. The department says the reason for these restrictions is to avoid activities that “could impair the news-gathering function” because the government recognizes that “freedom of the press cannot be broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and report the news.” News organizations are usually notified in advance that the government wants phone records and then begin negotiations for the requested information. However, in this case, the government cited an exception to these rules in its letter to the AP provides that prior notification may be waived if such notification, as stated in the waiver, would “pose a significant threat to the integrity of the investigation.”
In this case, Eric Holder appears to have made all sorts of exceptions to existing rules and protocols. Thus, in accordance with the guidelines of the Department of Justice, the Prosecutor General himself must sign off on such operations. Jay Carney
referred to reporters’ questions to the Justice Department and the White House said I didn’t know about the situation until word spread publicly – this is a familiar and questionable refrain. The Prosecutor General’s priorities have proven true hand in glove with the president’s program for almost five years. Nobody did you hear about this story at the White House?
(4) Forced HHS “donations” pressure health care companies to fund Obamacare implementation – Republican Senator Lamar Alexander turned to the Government Accountability Office check legality Ch. Sebelius’ unconventional and ethically questionable fundraising efforts. Alexander suspects the plan “may infringe on Congress’s authority to direct policy through appropriations.” This isn’t the first time Sebelius has been accused breaking the law testing the limits of her job duties. By the way, don’t forget which one good federal agency aims to enforce Obamacare.
Against the backdrop of a whirlwind of four separate scandals, the president had the audacity to deliver another lecture on “cynicism,” this time blaming Rush Limbaugh for everything that ails Washington. The analysis came at a swanky, star-studded fundraiser in Manhattan. Obama senses increased distrust and dysfunction and instinctively targets his critics – rather than, say, any of the elements detailed above. Goodbye quote – relevant flashback:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CJqD7F2pwA
“Punish our enemies.” How compelling.
