This just in from The Washington Post:
Senior White House officials, including Chief of Staff Dennis McDonough, learned last month about a review by the Treasury Department’s inspector general into whether the Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, but they did not inform President Obama, the White House said Monday.
The acknowledgement is the White House’s latest disclosure in a continual release of details concerning the extent to which White House officials knew of the IG’s findings that IRS officials engaged in the “inappropriate” targeting of conservative non-profits for heightened scrutiny. Previously, the White House said counsel Kathryn Ruemmler did not learn of the investigation until the week of April 22nd, and had not disclosed that McDonough and other aides had also been told about the investigation. On Monday, Carney said the chief of staff and other aides learned of the probe the week of April 16.
The White House has said President Obama did not learn of the IRS’s actions until he saw news reports on the matter earlier this month….
For some reason, this reminds me an incident involving my two youngest grandchildren. My wife was keeping them the other day, and walked out of the room for a second. Immediately, my grandson (who had his first birthday over the weekend) yelled. My wife rushed back into the room and asked his big sister, 3, what had happened.
Her response: “I didn’t kick him in the head…”
My point being that sometimes, when you overexplain, it just gets you into more trouble.
Related Posts
If I was the President, I would be thinking: I wonder what other troubling things the WH counsel and my Chief of Staff aren’t telling me. Obama is obviously not like Don Corleone in this regard:
“Mr. Corleone is a man who insists on hearing bad news immediately.”
-Tom Hagen to Woltz
The president needs to know every detail of everything that ever happened.
How’s about we start with things that would make the President “outraged”?
You are absolutely correct. And in the case of this particular president, based on his history, he wants us to believe he knows every detail of everything that ever happened. After all, the editor of Harvard Revue is never uninformed, is he?
Law Review. The Harvard Revue is the Hasty Pudding…..
Sorry Kathryn, my mistake. 20 lashes and keelhauling – sufficient?
Seriously, the WH Counsel told the CoS, but then not POTUS? Okaaaayy. If the WH Counsel knows there’s a major legal issue coming right at the President and she doesn’t tell him, what exactly is she there for? I’m pretty sure that the main job of someone’s lawyer and/or subordinate (CoS) is to make sure that your boss doesn’t get blindsided by events.
If Obama didn’t know then (when his subordinates did), he’s set up a staff system where people either can’t evaluate information or are too afraid to pass it on.
So we know the White House Counsel and the Chief of Staff are two people who are allowed to decide what information the President gets. What I want to know is: Who else is on this list? Who else is allowed to limit Obama’s information?
Two observations.
First, if Obama didn’t hear about the IRS actions against conservative groups until he heard it on the news, then just who the hell is running things in the Obama administration? It most certainly is not Obama and if this account is accurate according to one of his cheerleader newspapers the WaPo, there are a couple of possibilities. Either his staff is scared $#!+less of the man, he doesn’t handle controversial issues very well, or he just doesn’t want to be bothered with bad news. Maybe he had a campaign fund raiser scheduled and needed to get his rest. Neither one is indicative of an effective leader, if anything, they are distinctive signs of inherent weaknesses. And just because he projects the image of being a pragmatic intellectual doesn’t indicate he is either intelligent or pragmatic. Who is behind the curtains, pulling the levers?
Second, I don’t believe Obama was not aware of the IRS investigations of conservative groups prior to the news media letting the story out. No president is that shielded against “bad news” from his staff for such an extended period of time. Reference “First” again.
Dick Cheney is, Bart.
Mark,
Great response. Informative too. Thought the evil genius was long gone!!
Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Barack Obama’s got to go!
(virtual protest)
Silence would you rather have President Biden?
Let’s see where all this goes. Perhaps it’s a big deal. Perhaps not. I suspect the Obama staff never considered this a major scandal, which it really isn’t, and were just waiting on more information. Then it blew up in the media before the president was briefed. Afterall Republicans went after groups like Acorn without much repurcussion. Given that these tea party groups were ultimately granted tax exempt status this doesn’t seem that much of big deal.
I would suggest to my conservative friends this faux outrage is getting you nowhere. Obama’s approval is largely unaffected. Many folks see all this is nothing more than a giant political witch hunt. And it can backfire very quickly as we are now seeing with the Benghazi non-scandal. With all the problems the nation has to deal with the real scandal is the constant politicizing of events before the facts are all in.
I would suggest to my friend bud that it’s not “faux outrage”. In a free society, when the party-in-power uses the mechanisms of the government to target and harass political enemies, it IS a big deal. It delegitimizes the power that the government wields, and it blurs the line between the lawful operations of a democratic government and an unaccountable dictatorship. Using the apparatus of the state to target peaceful political enemies is very Banana Republic.
It was nothing less than an attempt to stifle legitimate, protected political speech and restrict (conservative) people’s first amendment rights. One can only imagine the outrage that would be happening if the targeted groups were CAIR (Muslim), NAACP (Colored People), or the ACLU (Liberal).
Actually Silence Nixon and Reagan did target the NAACP. And Bush targeted ACORN.
wasn’t ACORN doing illegal stuff? Or was it just their sub-contractors who were fraudulently registering voters including “Mickey Mouse” and the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys football team?
Silence, ACLU is not a “liberal” or “conservative” organization, except insofar as modern conservatism (until the recent rise of libertarianism and Tea Party-ism) had decided to turn its back on its historic link to a strong defense of civil liberties. I find it ironic that in a comment (rightfully) protesting against “the party-in-power [using] the mechanisms of the government to target and harass political enemies,” and the perceived stifling of conservatives’ First Amendment rights, you would characterize an organization that agrees with your view as necessarily “liberal.” The cause of protecting civil liberties transcends liberal-vs.-conservative ideology.
Philip, the ACLU is a liberal group. I didn’t say that I disagreed with them, just that people would be justifiably outraged if they were stifled by the heavy hand of government.
Yes, more or less by definition, the ACLU is a liberal organization. Just as many people who call themselves “conservative” these days are actually classical liberals.
And Phillip, it seems like you sort of did a back-flip in that parenthetical — “modern conservatism (until the recent rise of libertarianism and Tea Party-ism) had decided to turn its back on its historic link to a strong defense of civil liberties.”
As your aside about Tea Party-ism indicates, what is called “conservatism” today is strongly imbued with liberal values.
Yes, there we go again into the discussion about the definition of “liberal”. Brad, I agree with you in the sense of the classic definition, as in “liberal democracy,” but I think Silence meant “liberal” in the Nancy Pelosi/Bernie Sanders definition, and my point was only that if the ACLU skews “liberal” among its membership, it’s primarily because the modern GOP decided to abandon its Jeffersonian foundations and that left more liberals as “card-carrying members,” in George HW Bush’s memorable phrase. Say what you will about the Tea Party or the libertarian wing of the GOP, the intriguing thing is the point of intersection over defense of civil liberties between them and some on the progressive side of the ideological spectrum.
Are you saying that conservatives’ liberties are more at risk for violations than Muslims’ in this country? Or that oppression against the former has happened while with the latter it’s just a hypothetical?
LOL
Oppression!? Hyperbole alert!
Can you read? It is not at all hyperbole to say that tea party partisans make that claim. They do it all the time. This IRS thing is just their latest boogeyman.
How about it was a crude attempt to catch tax cheats? You don’t get to be tax- exempt if you are primarily political, and by putting political hot button words in your name, that raises a reasonable query into your activities. If, under Bush, the IRS had targeted groups with “Progressive” in their names for extra scrutiny when they applied as tax ex. orgs, would there be a hue and cry. It wasn’t “harassment”; it was “looking out for the honest taxpayer.”
Only one problem with your theory, counselor. The IRS didn’t look into all groups with “hot button words” in their name. They only looked at groups on one side of the political spectrum.
They looked at new groups that were suddenly cropping up everywhere.
What sorts of groups have been cropping up in profusion since 2010?
This should be thoroughly investigated, but the fact is that if in the last few years dozens of groups with “Tea Party” in their names have cropped up asking for tax exemption, one might, without any sort of political agenda, decide to say, “Let’s see if all of these are legit…”
Something I didn’t realize until just now…
The NYT first wrote about this on March 6, 2012 — 14 months ago…
Yes, groups whose very name incorporates tax protest, though!
What I find ironic about all this is that the one genuine scandal is the one involving the AP and for some reason conservatives don’t have much interest in that one. I find it very alarming that the administration is going after news providers in such a brazen fashion. Is that something covered by the USA-PATRIOT act and therefore legally legitimate? Inquiring people want to know. But instead we a have all this petty stuff crowding out the real scandal.
I think Conservatives are interested in ALL of Obama’s legitimate scandals. AP, FoxNews, Benghazi, Kermit Gosnell, etc. Based on how the IRS scandal was announced, it appears that the Obama administration put the story out there to distract from Benghazi. I wonder why they did, if Benghazi’s such a non-scandal.
How is Kermit Gosnell an Obama administration scandal?
Scandal, anyway, is a highly abused term around Washington during second terms.
The IRS thing is real. But it sounds like it is a problem of civil service management than it is a tale of political intrigue. No scandal here. The AP story is an age old tale; it’s typical of the push pull of social structure. Again, no scandal. Benghazi? Please, I am beyond tired of replaying a State Department mistake.
But, yeah, Silence, Fox News is a scandal – it’s scandalous that people watch it as news and not as political theater.
OK, I just threw Dr. Gosnell in there to add fuel to the fire.
I dunno Mark. I think the AP story MAY actually be a scandal. The other two you have characterized the same as I do.
Where’s the scandal; an administration used the powers given to it by the legislature. I’m in no way saying it’s right, just that they used the toys someone put in their toolbox.
No one has said that the administration was interested in influencing AP stories. Cracking down on internal leaks is what every administration must do. Only by appearing draconian on this can an administration keep the more mundane stuff from being inappropriately released by people just grinding their axes.
The real scandal of Benghazi is how conservatives are so brazenly using this as a bludgeon against the adminstration even to the point of changing the wording of the e-mails. All these hearings and investigations are making Republicans like Mr. Issa look far worse than the administration. Given the fact that the adminstration stated clearly the event was an act of terror FROM THE BEGINNING and that Susan Rice clearly stated on the talk shows that the facts were not all in yet pretty much makes this whole thing a non-issue.
Yes, and the (liberal rag) Washington Post gave the administration 3 Pinocchios.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-white-house-claim-of-doctored-e-mails-to-smear-the-president/2013/05/20/a23343b6-c19e-11e2-8bd8-2788030e6b44_blog.html
The big issue about Obama admin acts is the AP communication intercepts. That IS a big deal!
Let’s remember what we’re dealing with. The IRS (the most feared and coercive arm of the administrative state) engaged in methodical effort to suppress private citizens dissent against the party in power. I’m no White House Counsel, but that sounds like a big deal to me. I’d probably run that one up the flagpole to the ol’ chief executive. But that’s just me.
If the “Obama Staff” (which specifically means the White House Counsel and the Chief of Staff) didn’t consider this to be a big deal, they’re clearly incompetent or corrupt and should be immediately fired.
This is just going to keep getting worse. The facts are going to come out. The only question is when. We’re only in the second week of looking into this. Personally, I hope that a criminal prosecutor gets involved and starts going after these people in the same form that we go after narco-traffickers. Start with the lower people, and only give them immunity if they give up the higher person on the food chain. Roll it up to the top.
The 2014 midterms are going to be….fun.
Yeah, let’s criminalize politics. That’s the solution for sure.
How about both parties respect the term civil service and work to encourage apolitical administration? You don’t seriously think that politicization of an agency is something that has never occurred before do you Bryan?
While the scale is different, which is worse – employees within an IRS field office going after political groups that have a high probability of at the very least skating on thin legal ice (and of course there are left-leaning groups equally as likely guilty of this who should have been as closely investigated), or a Governor who directs a state agency to sell out the State’s long-term economic interests for political favors from forces outside her state?
Not criminalizing “politics”. Just crime. (I know, that’s a small distinction.)
Speaking of Crime: Lois Lerner (the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS) is scheduled to appear before a House Committee tomorrow.
According to her lawyer, she’s going to invoke the Fifth Amendment.
Source:http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-top-irs-official-fifth-amendment-20130521,0,6645565.story
If no laws have been broken, as everyone has been telling me, why does she take the fifth? It should not be used merely to avoid embarrassment or to protect your boss.
If I ever get audited, can I take the fifth?
Yes you can.
The 2014 midterms are going to be….fun.
-Bryan
They could be. But I doubt any of these faux scandals will be much of a factor. Folks will vote based on the issues, the economy and perhaps some foreign policy event that hasn’t occurred yet. Generally off-year elections during a president’s term are not good for the incumbents party. The House is so gerrymandered I don’t think it will change much. But it could get interesting in the Senate. Hopefully the GOP will pick a few more extremists like Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, Richard Mourdock or Todd Akin. If, on the other hand, they wise up and pick reasonable folks to run then the Dems could be in danger of losing the Senate.
No question, this should have been kicked up to the boss — so that he could go ahead and call it “outrageous” and start an investigation a couple of weeks earlier. But that’s about it. It would have been just as bad then as it is now.
As for the 2014 midterms being fun… I doubt it.
Frankly, as I age I find elections to be less and less fun. Just new opportunities for both parties to engage in hyperbolic bombast playing to the prejudices of their respective bases in ways that make us all stupider for having heard it. It’s depressing.
And if you’re talking about congressional elections, well, that’s the least fun of all. And in South Carolina, pointless. In the 6th District, Jim Clyburn will be elected. In the rest, Republicans will be elected. No suspense, much less fun.
All that will matter at all will be the state and local elections. And I’m not seeing any of those being “fun.”
Cheer up, buttercup.
The IRS (the most feared and coercive arm of the administrative state) engaged in methodical effort to suppress private citizens dissent against the party in power.
-Bryan
Seriously? Given the fact that virtually all the tea party groups that sought non-profit status eventually obtained it pretty much makes that claim nothing but an overblown pile of nonsense. And the Tea Party continues to dissent away.
Hmmm. Remember when conservatives wanted to use the IRS to monitor abortions?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2011/03/18/irs-abortion-audits-would_n_837515.html
What a horrible idea. Anyone who wants to increase the government’s oversight over things that don’t need it isn’t a conservative. That’s clearly an attempt to discourage a practice (abortion) by having the threat of the IRS come down on someone. That would be horrible.
Good thing that’s not the law, and that the IRS doesn’t systematically target certain groups of people to harass. Oh, wait…
Have to disagree with this: “Anyone who wants to increase the government’s oversight over things that don’t need it isn’t a conservative.”
No. Anyone who wants to increase the government’s oversight over things that don’t need it isn’t a libertarian. Conservatives may or may not want to do such a thing…
Actually, to correct myself — a libertarian wouldn’t want to “increase the government’s oversight over things” whether it’s needed or not.
Sorry. I had skimmed right over your “that don’t need it” qualifier. True, a conservative wouldn’t want to do it if it’s not needed…
Yeah, kind of a lawyerly qualifier from me at the end. 🙂 Point taken on the conservative/libertarian distinction, though.
I’m fine with my tax dollars not funding other people’s children, or their abortions.
And I’m fine with my tax dollars taking care of children who lack parents who are willing or able to care for them.
It’s what Ronald Reagan called “the safety net.”
Children are not culpable for the conditions in which they find themselves. And it’s in our self-interest to give them a chance in life. So both altruism and pragmatism argue for not letting kids fall through the cracks.
Yes Brad, but I think that even you would agree that personal or parental responsibility is preferable to a safety net. Anyways, I think that the article Burl linked to was intended to show just how intrusive the federal government can be, at its worst.
“And I’m fine with my tax dollars taking care of children who lack parents who are willing or able to care for them.”
You left out “AND YOURS” after tax dollars. Unfortunately too many people approve of spending other people’s tax dollars… especially when those other people are kicking in more.
And how many more of your tax dollars are you willing to kick in to solve the problem of poor parenting? How’s it working out so far?
So what is the libertarian position on parenting. I’d think it would be that people should have the freedom to parent however they choose, even if it’s badly. No? (I’m really asking.)
Exactly. The government can’t fix bad parents. If individuals want to pool their resources to try and help parents, that’s fine as well.
I’ve seen bad parents across the economic spectrum. It’s rarely due to money issues.
We could also stop supporting teenagers who have children out of wedlock. It’s a recipe for disaster. Those are the cradle to grave dependents our government creates.
No, Doug, the government cannot fix bad parents; but it can protect and minimally support the children of such parents so that they do not have to grow up to be street urchins. That is in your best interest, incidentally. And mine.
I do wish that the government would stop terminating parental rights and instead focus more on enforcing parental responsibilities. Like we do with tax obligations, childrens’ needs should not simply be able to be shrugged off without consequence.
Bad parents should go to prison, not the welfare line.
@Mark
I’ll ask you the same question – how much more money will it take to fix bad parents? If we doubled spending would we see twice as good outcomes?
Unless you take the kids away, there is little that can be done to fix those situations. Or put a babysitter and a chaperone into every home.
I would be willing to have tax dollars go to efforts to improve parenting skills. It would have to be tactfully done. But I believe there are certainly people to be helped who would be open to it. I’ve not met many parents who set it as their aim to be poor at it; I’ve met a lot of parents with limited skills, knowledge, and resources doing the best they can which may not happen to be very good – and I’ve also met a few scumbags who truly don’t seem to care. I believe the first group is able to be helped with the right approach.
Yet another social program…
Armed DHS agents deployed against TEA Party protesters outside St. Louis IRS office. Glad sequester spared these important folks….
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/05/woah-armed-dhs-guards-outside-irs-in-st-louis/
Not exactly the riot squad; looks like these two were dispatched from STL.
The Suburbans don’t help their cause, however. Vehicular overcompensation.
Great! Let’s stir the pot some more. Here’s a (slightly redacted) quote. Guess how old it is:
“Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home–but not for housing. They are strong for labor–but they are stronger for restricting labor’s rights. They favor minimum wage–the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all–but they won’t spend money for teachers or for schools. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine–for people who can afford them. They consider electrical power a great blessing–but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They think American standard of living is a fine thing–so long as it doesn’t spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.”
Circa 1900?
I cheated to find the answer…I thought FDR but was incorrect, though close…
Maybe Teddy Roosevelt in his Bull Moose days?
I removed a reference to the TVA.
It is an excerpt from a Harry S. Truman political speech in Minneapolis on 10/13/1948. The irony is that during his time as Vice President until he took office after FDR died, Democrats had a rock solid, iron grip on both houses from the 73rd through the 79th congress, 1933 through 1947.
The actual portion of speech without editing for convenience:
“Well, I have been studying the Republican Party for over 12 years at close hand in the Capital of the United States. And by this time, I have discovered where the Republicans stand on most of the major issues.
Since they won’t tell you themselves, I am going to tell you.
They approve of the American farmer-but they are willing to help him go broke.
They stand four-square for the American home–but not for housing.
They are strong for labor–but they are stronger for restricting labor’s rights.
They favor a minimum wage–the smaller the minimum the better.
They indorse educational opportunity for all–but they won’t spend money for teachers or for schools.
They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine–for people who can afford them.
They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people.
They believe in international trade–so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement.
They favor the admission of displaced persons–but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.
They consider electric power a great blessing-but only when the private power companies get their rake-off.
They say TVA is wonderful–but we ought never to try it again.
They condemn “cruelly high prices”–but fight to the death every effort to bring them down.
They think the American standard of living is a fine thing–so long as it doesn’t spread to all the people.
And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it. ”
But, if you read the entire speech, a lot of what he had to say could be applicable today – to both parties. Seems like the lines have been blurred quite a lot over the decades since Truman’s speech.
Seems like we’ve always had an issue with partisanship. The only difference is there are more tax dollars to fight over and more outlets for communicating the partisanship rhetoric.
Yeah, I was thinking FDR… I thought I remembered the part about the farmer.
Did anyone else see “Hyde Park on Hudson?” I thought Bill Murray did a pretty good job.
The thing that kept striking me was how odd history seems sometimes to those of us who know how it comes out.
That there was actually a time when the special relationship with Britain was in doubt, when the king and queen could be anxious about a meeting with the president, with the survival of their country in the balance, seems hard to imagine.
I read about that almost month-long visit that Churchill paid to the White House right after Pearl Harbor, working to further shape that relationship, and it seems like an awful lot of time to put in on something that I take for granted from a generation’s remove…