Now he's joining the chorus of "Lois must go." I don't really get this. Supposedly it's because she pleaded the Fifth in front of Darrell Issa's IRS witch hunt hearings. I'm becoming more and more convinced that the media people just have to join a good chorus. They can't be the one person not throwing stones. They too want to be Serious.
"The big piece of IRS news today is that Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division — the IRS unit at the center of the scandal involving the targeting of conservative groups — has pleaded the Fifth at today’s hearing:
I don't get where 'insubordination' comes in either-was there someone who told them not to use such criteria beforehand? I have to say I'm tired of all the hue and cry about this. At the end of the day this is even sillier than Benghazi as far as I'm concerned. Nobody was killed. No wealthy Tea Partier lost their tax exemption. While it's true that some had to wait as much as two years, in the mean time guess what they were doing? Not paying any taxes.
Lerner herself is just a scapegoat. She actually was the one who saw a problem with the criteria being used in the Cincinnati office and had them employ new criteria. Honestly it was not such an easy question just what kind of criteria should be used. While supposedly their supposed to use "nonpolitical" criteria that's the whole issue. What exactly constitutes nonpolitical vs. political groups. Now we have the spectre of all kinds of unsavory Tea Party groups coming out and beating their breast-like homophobic groups, etc.
The idea that you shouldn't look at politics seems reasonable but how about the KKK-could they conceivably qualify for 401(c)(4)? If not, then clearly there are limits on considering only "nonpolitical criteria."
In more pile-on news, Darrell Issa claims that Lerner has no constitutional rights.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/darrell-issa-irs-lois-lerner-91755.html?hp=t3_3
I'm sure he believes this but probably doesn't think anyone but his Right wing reactionary friends have any rights. I love how the fact that a Fox news reporter may have been questioned about leaks is a big scandal. The GOP has always demanded that the Obama Administration go after leakers. It turns out that their is an implied Fox News Exception.
Meanwhile I see that Sargent does get it right that this whole When did Obama know about the scandal is absurd. Still, Jay Carney is coming out and saying that the White House deserves criticism on how it has released information on the IRS pseudoscandal.
"The White House could have done a better job at providing an accurate timeline of when and to what extent it became aware of an investigation into improper Internal Revenue Service conduct that targeted conservative groups during the run-up to the 2012 election, press secretary Jay Carney conceded Wednesday."
"The big piece of IRS news today is that Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division — the IRS unit at the center of the scandal involving the targeting of conservative groups — has pleaded the Fifth at today’s hearing:
Lois G. Lerner told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in an opening statement that members of the panel have already accused her of providing false information to Congress.“I have not done anything wrong,” she said. “I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS regulations. And I have not provided false information to this or any other committee.” But on the advice of counsel, she said, she would not answer questions or testify before the committee.
"In a letter to committee chairman Darrell Issa, Lerner’s lawyer claimed she “has no choice” but to plead the Fifth, given that the Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation. But I agree with Josh Marshall: while this may be the right path for Lerner herself, given the circumstances, it also means she must be removed from her position, even if this is bureaucratically difficult."
It's not clear why pleading her Constitutional rights means this. Incidentally she's not the first to do this when testifying in front of Congress: Ollie North himself did this.
"The Treasury Department inspector general’s report found that the IRS used “inappropriate criteria” in targeting Tea Party groups, but found no evidence of partisan motivation in the application of those criteria. Top IRS officials, such as acting IRS commissioner Steven Miller, who has resigned, have reiterated that there was no partisanship at play. Meanwhile, a New York Times investigation suggested that what happened was partly the result of incompetence and confusion in the face of a tide of applications for tax exemptions."
"But there are still key gaps in the story that must be filled concerning how, exactly, these groups were targeted. There is absolutely no evidence that what happened was tied to the Obama administration or 2012 reelection campaign, or any outside Democratic political group. Nor is there any evidence that those who did target the Tea Party groups were doing so out of a desire to influence the election. But as Ezra Klein notes:
But then there’s the offense that everyone agrees did occur: A number of IRS employees developed criteria that was politically biased both in appearance and in effect…Their actions called the fairness of the agency into question and kicked off a national scandal. Even if their intent was pure, they showed bad judgment, more than a bit of incompetence, and perhaps even a touch of insubordination. That is reason enough to fire people, even if the process is difficult.
I don't get where 'insubordination' comes in either-was there someone who told them not to use such criteria beforehand? I have to say I'm tired of all the hue and cry about this. At the end of the day this is even sillier than Benghazi as far as I'm concerned. Nobody was killed. No wealthy Tea Partier lost their tax exemption. While it's true that some had to wait as much as two years, in the mean time guess what they were doing? Not paying any taxes.
Lerner herself is just a scapegoat. She actually was the one who saw a problem with the criteria being used in the Cincinnati office and had them employ new criteria. Honestly it was not such an easy question just what kind of criteria should be used. While supposedly their supposed to use "nonpolitical" criteria that's the whole issue. What exactly constitutes nonpolitical vs. political groups. Now we have the spectre of all kinds of unsavory Tea Party groups coming out and beating their breast-like homophobic groups, etc.
The idea that you shouldn't look at politics seems reasonable but how about the KKK-could they conceivably qualify for 401(c)(4)? If not, then clearly there are limits on considering only "nonpolitical criteria."
In more pile-on news, Darrell Issa claims that Lerner has no constitutional rights.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/darrell-issa-irs-lois-lerner-91755.html?hp=t3_3
I'm sure he believes this but probably doesn't think anyone but his Right wing reactionary friends have any rights. I love how the fact that a Fox news reporter may have been questioned about leaks is a big scandal. The GOP has always demanded that the Obama Administration go after leakers. It turns out that their is an implied Fox News Exception.
Meanwhile I see that Sargent does get it right that this whole When did Obama know about the scandal is absurd. Still, Jay Carney is coming out and saying that the White House deserves criticism on how it has released information on the IRS pseudoscandal.
"The White House could have done a better job at providing an accurate timeline of when and to what extent it became aware of an investigation into improper Internal Revenue Service conduct that targeted conservative groups during the run-up to the 2012 election, press secretary Jay Carney conceded Wednesday."
"There's been some legitimatize criticisms of how we're handling this," Carney told reporters at his daily briefing.
"Faced with mounting criticism over its shifting timeline and incomplete answers about which senior administration officials were aware of an impending inspector general report in April, Carney admitted that information he previously provided required a "correction" on Monday.
"You're good at your jobs and you're smart," Carney told reporters, "but we can't anticipate every question."
"Sometimes we don't have the answers and sometimes we need to go back and get them," he added.
If the Administration doesn't intend to get roiled by the GOP and their media henchmen I think Carney conceded too much. As Sargent and others have pointed out, this whole game of what did he know and when did he know it? is foolish. Yet by agreeing with the criticism, Carney is implicitly saying that this game is legitimate.
For that matter, as Elizabeth Drew says, it was probably a mistake for the White House to have opened a criminal probe in the first place: we don't know that anything criminal was done.
If the facts we later learn suggests this ten do so. But doing so before we even investigate suggests a rush to judgment.
"Obama, anxious not to be seen defending everybody’s punching bag, the IRS, quickly ceded ground on what could be perfectly defensible actions. He may come to regret taking what seemed a trigger-happy decision to order a criminal investigation of the Internal Revenue Service, a sure way to drag people who may have—may have—simply made errors of judgment through a long and expensivelegal process that is likely also to keep the agency from examining the validity of the application for tax-free status of any group with powerful allies. If, following the Citizens United decision, there is a sudden doubling of the number of new organizations with similar names and missions, and these organizations apply for tax exempt status—and also the right to hide the names of their donors—might it not make sense to use a search engine to find them? This what the just-fired sacrificial acting IRS commissioner, testifying before a congressional committee on Friday, termed a “grouping” of the cases that had already been almost universally condemned as “targeting,” which he insisted it wasn’t. But this simple explanation wouldn’t do, didn’t warrant the term “outrage” routinely conferred on the IRS case. Could it just possibly be that the Tea Party and their allies see a great benefit in making a stink over this? How better to freeze the IRS examinations of these groups??
Lerner seems to be one of the few here who seems to get what it means to defend yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment