President Obama said, there’s 'Not Even a Smidgen of Corruption' at IRS

          In a taped interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly before the Superbowl, President Obama says there is “not even a smidgen of corruption” at the IRS, but it that really true? In addition, when O’Reilly stated, “…some people are saying is that the IRS was used at a local level in Cincinnati, maybe other places,” President Obama interjected, “absolutely wrong!” O’Reilly then asked, “How do you know that because we still don’t know what happened there?” President Obama interjected again saying, “Bill, we do. That’s not what happened. Folks have again had multiple hearings on this. I mean, these kinds of things keep on surfacing, in part because you and your T.V. station will promote them” (‘Not even a smidgen of corruption’: Obama downplays IRS, other scandals, 2014). From President Obama’s comments you can see he tried to blame Fox News and O’Reilly for hyping the story (Andersen, 2014). Is covering and investigating a story, which is the role of journalism, justification for saying they are “promoting” and “hyping” the story? Also in the interview, President Obama, in an attempt to minimize the issues at the IRS, admitted “there were some bone-headed decisions,” but dismissed the notion of corruption (Andersen, 2014) (Rothman, 2014). It has come to light, however, that the IRS has in fact been targeting Tea Party and conservative groups. Are the President’s statements disingenuous or just misinformed? Is there corruption at the IRS or is this hype? Is the President trying to intentionally diminish the story? If so, why?

          First, let’s look at some comparisons to get a baseline for analysis. USA Today reported that in February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois had received IRS approval of its tax-exempt status request with no questions in only 90 days, and this was one month before the IRS targeting began (Pompa, Schouten, & Hargro, 2013). In comparison, it was reported that in the 27 months following this approval, no Tea Party named groups were approved, while other liberal named groups with similar activities were approved in as little as nine months (Pompa, Schouten, & Hargro, IRS gave liberals a pass; Tea Party groups put on hold, 2013). Now that we have a baseline comparison, do you still think this story is hype? These facts alone justify additional inquiry. Let’s dig a little further.

          In the current IRS issue we can see tactics of defend, deny, deflect, divert, and delay. First, in an attempt to defend the IRS, President Obama cited confusion surrounding the rules for 501c4 organizations. He also said he did not recall meeting with then-IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman, who had been to the White House 157 times (Andersen, 2014) (Rothman, 2014). It seems highly unlikely during 157 visits to the White House that Mr. Shulman would have never met or talked with President Obama. Furthermore, during congressional testimony on March 22^nd, 2013, Mr. Shulman in a classic denial stated, “there's absolutely no targeting” (Fox News, 2013), and in a statement released on May 10^th, 2013 the IRS admitted “mistakes were made initially, but they were in no way due to any political or partisan rationale” (Williamson, 2013). However, Lois Lerner, the head of the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups, acknowledged on May 10^th, 2013 that organizations applying for tax-exempt status were singled out if they had the words “tea party” or “patriot” in their names. (Spakovsky, 2013). And, according to Fox News, “[at] least 72 applications with the term ‘tea party’ were targeted by the IRS as early as 2010 and 40 of those groups have filed suit against the IRS” (Andersen, IRS-Targeted Scandal Victims Will Not Be Silenced, 2014). It seems, Mr. Shulman was either uninformed or he was lying to congress. Furthermore, who did Mr. Shulman meet with in the White House in his 157 visits? If he met with the President, what was discussed?

          In the same May 10^th, 2013 testimony Lois Lerner tried deflect and localize the blame when she claimed that “the practice was initiated by low-level workers in Cincinnati and was not motivated by political bias” (Spakovsky, 2013). There are a few problems with this statement. First, in a letter to IRS Commissioner Douglas H. Shulman, members of The United States Senate Committee on Finance stated, “We have received reports and reviewed information from nonprofit civic organizations in Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas concerning recent IRS inquiries perceived to be excessive” (Senators to IRS: Don’t Let Politics Trump Policy on Non-Profit Group Designations, 2012) and “the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) has confirmed that it represents 27 targeted conservative groups across 18 states” (Spakovsky, 2013). So we have Lerner claiming it was isolated to workers in Cincinnati, yet we have claims from organizations in at least 18 different states. Second, Lerner claimed that the actions of the IRS were “not motivated by political bias.” (Spakovsky, 2013). How is it possible to single out organizations by names associated with political groups and claim that it is not political bias? One can only conclude that Lerner is either both uninformed and naïve, or she is being deliberately disingenuous.

          More discrepancies show up on May 21^st, 2013 when Holly Paz, the Internal Revenue Service's director of rulings and agreements and the highest-ranking IRS official with knowledge of the targeting to thus far cooperate with the congressional investigation, spoke to House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and bipartisan committee staffers. “Paz said agents in Cincinnati openly talked about handling “tea party” cases, but she thought the term was merely shorthand for all applications from groups that were politically active — conservative and liberal” (Johnsen, 2013). But in a June 2, 2011 e-mail Holly Paz wrote, “What criteria are being used to label a case a 'Tea Party case'?” She went on to say, “We want to think about whether those criteria are resulting in over-inclusion. Lois wants a briefing on these cases” (Korte, 2013). Then on June 17^th, 2013, through her lawyer, Paz stated that “on July 5^th, 2011, Lerner convened a meeting in Washington -- with Cincinnati managers attending by phone -- to discuss the Tea Party cases and it was clear that screeners were using key words like “Tea Party”, “Patriots” or “9/12” to identify cases for greater scrutiny” (Korte, 2013). So it appears that Holly Paz has been a little inconsistent in her statements. How could she believe that that term “tea party” referred to all politically active groups and then be concerned about over-inclusion?

          Then you have Elizabeth Hofacre, the IRS emerging issues coordinator in Cincinnati, who testified to investigators that she kicked out any progressive groups that other agents tried to put in with the Tea Party cases and that she understood the term to mean conservative or Republican groups. Hofacre said, “I was tasked to do Tea Parties, and I wasn't — I wasn't equipped or set up to do anything else.” Hofacre, who had been working on tax-exempt determinations in Cincinnati for 11 years, said the way the IRS handled Tea Party cases was unprecedented” (Korte, 2013) (Korte, Cincinnati IRS agents first raised Tea Party issues, 2013).

          Jay Carney in a press conference on May 14^th, 2013 tried to divert some of the blame to the previous administration when he stated that the “IRS is an independent enforcement agency, the, which I believe as I understand it contains only two political appointees within it the individual who was running the IRS at the time was actually an appointee from the previous administration” (Fox News, 2013). First, who appointed IRS Commissioner has no bearing in this case. Secondly, his claim that the IRS is an independent enforcement agency is not entirely true as the IRS is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury and is organized to carry out the responsibilities of the secretary of the Treasury under section 7801 of the Internal Revenue Code (The Agency, its Mission and Statutory Authority, 2014).

          Is there corruption at the IRS? President Obama does not think so; however, we have two high-level people in the IRS who have admitted that there was targeting of conservative groups which is illegal. Furthermore, it has come to light that “House Oversight Committee staff working for Democratic Ranking Member Elijah Cummings communicated with the IRS multiple times between 2012 and 2013 about voter fraud prevention group True the Vote” even though Mr. Cummings previously denied that his staff had made any inquiries. In addition, these communication records between Mr. Cummings’ staff and IRS officials were never disclosed to Majority Members or staff (Pavlich, 2014). The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines corruption as “dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people” (corruption, 2014). So, perhaps President Obama does not understand the meaning of corruption. One thing is for sure, there is still more to come in this ever-unravelling story.

Bibliography

‘Not even a smidgen of corruption’: Obama downplays IRS, other scandals. (2014, February 3). Retrieved May 4, 2014, from Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/03/not-even-smidgen-corruption-obama-downplays-irs-other-scandals/

Andersen, E. (2014, February 10). IRS-Targeted Scandal Victims Will Not Be Silenced. Retrieved April 16, 2014, from The Foundry: http://blog.heritage.org/2014/02/10/irs-targeted-scandal-victims-will-silenced-video/

Andersen, E. (2014, February 3). Obama: 'Not Even a Smidgen of Corruption' at IRS. Retrieved April 16, 2014, from The Foundry: http://blog.heritage.org/2014/02/03/obama-even-smidgen-corruption-irs/

corruption. (2014). Retrieved May 3, 2014, from Oxford Dictionaries: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/corruption

corruption. (2014). Retrieved May 3, 2014, from Merriam-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corruption

Fox News. (2013, November 7). Obama : Administration ordered I.R.S. to target Conservative Based Tea Party Groups (May 10, 2013). Retrieved May 3, 2014, from You Tube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBnasus3JH4

Johnsen, E. (2013, June 17). Oh, good: IRS supervisor in DC “personally involved” in scrutinizing conservative groups’ early cases. Retrieved May 3, 2014, from Hot Air: http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/17/oh-good-irs-supervisor-in-dc-personally-involved-in-scrutinizing-conservative-groups-early-cases/

Korte, G. (2013, June 17). At IRS, 'Tea Party' could mean 'liberal,' official says. Retrieved April 16, 2014, from USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/irs-paz-targeting-tea%20-%20party/2426773/

Korte, G. (2013, June 11). Cincinnati IRS agents first raised Tea Party issues. Retrieved April 13, 2014, from USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/11/how-irs-tea-party-targeting-started/2411515/

McConnell, M. (2013, May 10). McConnell Calls on Obama Administration to Conduct Government-wide Review in Wake of IRS Admission of Harassment . Retrieved April 16, 2014, from Mitch McConnell, Rebublican Leader, U.S. Senator for Kentucky: http://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=53d179d9-59b8-4ba2-b544-11002c72c7ad

Pavlich, K. (2014, April 9). BREAKING: Emails Show Lois Lerner Fed True the Vote Tax Information to Democrat Elijah Cummings. Retrieved May 3, 2014, from Townhall Magazine: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/04/09/new-emaisl-show-lois-lerner-fed-information-about-true-the-vote-to-democrat-elijah-cummings-n1822247?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Pompa, F., Schouten, F., & Hargro, T. (2013, May 15). IRS approved liberal groups while Tea Party in limbo. Retrieved April 13, 2014, from USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-progressive-groups/2158831/

Pompa, F., Schouten, F., & Hargro, T. (2013, May 5). IRS gave liberals a pass; Tea Party groups put on hold. Retrieved April 16, 2014, from USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/14/irs-gave-progressives-a-pass-tea-party-groups-put-on-hold/2159983/

Rothman, N. (2014, February 6). Not a 'Smidgen' of Corruption? Witnesses Say the IRS Targeting Scandal Is Real - And STILL GOING ON. Retrieved May 4, 2014, from Fox Nation: http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/02/06/not-smidgen-corruption-witnesses-say-irs-targeting-scandal-real-and-still-going

Senators to IRS: Don’t Let Politics Trump Policy on Non-Profit Group Designations. (2012, March 14). Retrieved May 3, 2014, from The United States Senate Committe on Finance: http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/ranking/release/?id=b49bd610-6a0f-4ea5-bea2-8ce37e2e5e04

Spakovsky, H. v. (2013, May 10). IRS Admits It Targeted the Tea Party. Retrieved April 16, 2014, from The Foundry: http://blog.heritage.org/2013/05/10/the-irs-admits-it-targeted-the-tea-party/

The Agency, its Mission and Statutory Authority. (2014, February 12). Retrieved May 4, 2014, from IRS: http://www.irs.gov/uac/The-Agency,-its-Mission-and-Statutory-Authority

Williamson, K. D. (2013, May 10). ‘Mistakes Were Made’. Retrieved April 16, 2014, from National Review Online: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/347950/mistakes-were-made

Jay Carney Tries to Spin the New Benghazi Documents

Jay Carney tries to answer questions regarding the documents obtained by Judicial Watch  (Benghazi 4-7-14, 2014), through a Freedom of Information Act request. These documents identify that former White House Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes gave former U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice the Benghazi talking points which attributed the attack on the Benghazi compound to a video-inspired protest (Newly Released Documents Show White House Pushed Video, 2014).  Carney tries to say that these talking points were not about Benghazi. This seems entirely disingenuous. Was this originally an intentional act to focus attention on an internet video? Is this now an attempt to spin the released documents that were only released after Judicial Watch brought a lawsuit against the State Department for failure to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request back on October 18, 2012?

Figure 1  (Jon Karl vs. Jay Carney on Benghazi, 2014)

Bibliography

Benghazi 4-7-14. (2014, April 28). Retrieved April 30, 2014, from Judical Watch Document Archive: http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/1919_production-4-17-14/

Jon Karl vs. Jay Carney on Benghazi. (2014, April 30). Retrieved April 30, 2014, from You Tube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Nszcn0-9eTM

Newly Released Documents Show White House Pushed Video. (2014, April 30). Retrieved April 30, 2014, from Political Contrast: http://politicalcontrast.blogspot.com/

Newly Released Documents Show White House Pushed Video

      Judicial Watch, through a Freedom of Information Act request, received documents that identify who in the White House gave former U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice the Benghazi talking points which attributed the attack on the Benghazi compound to a video-inspired protest (Benghazi 4-7-14, 2014). These documents show former White House Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes in an e-mail to former U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and others with the purpose of preparing her for a later phone call listed the following:

Goals:

•  To convey that the United States is doing everything that we can to protect our people and facilities abroad;

•  To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy;

•  To show that we will be resolute in bringing people who harm Americans to justice, and standing steadfast through these protests;

•  To reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.

Top-lines:

•  Since we began to see protests in response to this Internet video, the President has directed the Administration to take a number of steps. His top priority has been the safety and security of all Americans serving abroad.

•  First, we have significantly increased security at our diplomatic posts around the globe, with additional resources from across the government. The safety and security of our personnel is paramount and under constant review.

•  Second, we have reached out to governments in the region to make sure they are cooperating closely with us, and meeting their obligations to protect diplomatic facilities as best they can. For instance, we've seen cooperation from Yemen and Egypt cooperate significantly after President Obama called those leaders.

•  Third, we've made our views on this video crystal clear. The United States government had nothing to do with it. We reject its message and its contents. We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence. And we are working to make sure that people around the globe hear that message.

•  Fourth, we've encouraged leaders around the globe to speak out against the violence, and you've seen very important statements in the Muslim world by people like Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey, President Morsi of Egypt, and others who have condemned the violence and called for a peaceful response.

•  I think that people have come to trust that President Obama provides leadership that is steady and statesmanlike. There are always going to be challenges that emerge around the world, and time and again he's shown that we can meet them.

      Probably the most incriminating statement is the goal “to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy” (Benghazi 4-7-14, 2014). These documents also show that “Several top White House staffers, including political strategist David Plouffe and press secretary Jay Carney, were involved in these emails” (Adams, 2014). This e-mail further underscores the multiple revisions of the talking points where all references of terrorism and al- Qa’ida were removed.

      Why was there this intentional attempt to redirect American’s focus away from terrorism and al-Qa’ida? Perhaps, in the lead up to the 2012 election, it was because as of November 1^st, 2012 “President Barack Obama has described al Qaeda [sic] as having been ‘decimated,’ ‘on the path to defeat’ or some other variation at least 32 times since the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, according to White House transcripts (Lucas, 2012). This shows, as many have believed, an intentional attempt to downplay the term terrorism and the role of al-Qa’ida in the attack on the Benghazi compound.

Bibliography

Adams, B. (2014, April 29). New White House Emails Reveal Effort to Portray Benghazi Attack as Being ‘Rooted’ in an ‘Internet Video,’ Protect President’s Re-Election. Retrieved April 30, 2014, from The Blaze: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/29/new-emails-reveal-effort-to-portray-benghazi-attack-as-being-rooted-in-an-internet-video-protect-presidents-re-election/

Benghazi 4-7-14. (2014, April 28). Retrieved April 30, 2014, from Judical Watch Document Archive: http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/1919_production-4-17-14/

Lucas, F. (2012, November 1). Obama Has Touted Al Qaeda’s Demise 32 Times since Benghazi Attack. Retrieved November 30, 2014, from CNS News: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-touts-al-qaeda-s-demise-32-times-benghazi-attack-0