It seems that the IRS scandal story has changed so many times that we ought to have numbered them like computer programs. This latest one seems to be IRS 8.0 or perhaps 9.0.
Here is today's question: when did IRS leadership learn that conservative groups and individuals were being targeted by the agency? Today's answer comes from, of all places, the Washington Post. The Post reports that deputy commissioner of the IRS, Steven Miller (who resigned last week as acting commissioner) got an oral report on May 3, 2012, which said that an internal investigation had found significant problems in the review process for tax exempt status and a substantial bias against conservative groups.
That report is more than one year ago. It went to the number two man in the IRS. What this means is the idea that only low level employees in Cincinnati were involved is now officially dead. (For those of you who do not recall, the low level rogue agents in Cincinnati story was the first one released to the public. It was IRS 1.0 in my new numbering system.) Back in May of 2012, fully six months before the presidential election, the leadership of the IRS had detailed knowledge of the wrongdoing in the agency, wrongdoing that could affect the outcome of the upcoming elections. What did the IRS leadership do in response to this news? NOTHING, or at least supposedly nothing.
The real truth is that the leadership of the IRS kept the story buried until long after the election so as to let the wrongdoing continue. But did the IRS leadership tell anyone else? That remains a particularly important question. Are we to believe that Steven Miller, a sniveling and evasive man who we have now seen testify twice before Congress, actually decided to do nothing when faced with a potential career-ending bit of news? This career bureaucrat supposedly was told about an illegal practice at the IRS and he decided to take full responsibility for it rather than reporting it to his superiors so as to insulate himself against any blowback. Does anyone believe that is possible after seeing Miller in action before Congress?
What all this indicates is that it is likely that in May 2012, someone in the leadership of the Department of the Treasury was told what was going on. Who was told? Did that person tell the White House? My guess is that we will soon learn that it was May of 2012 when the White House first was notified about what was going on, but that is speculation based only upon the normal functioning of the bureaucracy. Speculation or not, however, it is a good bet to be true.
Here is today's question: when did IRS leadership learn that conservative groups and individuals were being targeted by the agency? Today's answer comes from, of all places, the Washington Post. The Post reports that deputy commissioner of the IRS, Steven Miller (who resigned last week as acting commissioner) got an oral report on May 3, 2012, which said that an internal investigation had found significant problems in the review process for tax exempt status and a substantial bias against conservative groups.
That report is more than one year ago. It went to the number two man in the IRS. What this means is the idea that only low level employees in Cincinnati were involved is now officially dead. (For those of you who do not recall, the low level rogue agents in Cincinnati story was the first one released to the public. It was IRS 1.0 in my new numbering system.) Back in May of 2012, fully six months before the presidential election, the leadership of the IRS had detailed knowledge of the wrongdoing in the agency, wrongdoing that could affect the outcome of the upcoming elections. What did the IRS leadership do in response to this news? NOTHING, or at least supposedly nothing.
The real truth is that the leadership of the IRS kept the story buried until long after the election so as to let the wrongdoing continue. But did the IRS leadership tell anyone else? That remains a particularly important question. Are we to believe that Steven Miller, a sniveling and evasive man who we have now seen testify twice before Congress, actually decided to do nothing when faced with a potential career-ending bit of news? This career bureaucrat supposedly was told about an illegal practice at the IRS and he decided to take full responsibility for it rather than reporting it to his superiors so as to insulate himself against any blowback. Does anyone believe that is possible after seeing Miller in action before Congress?
What all this indicates is that it is likely that in May 2012, someone in the leadership of the Department of the Treasury was told what was going on. Who was told? Did that person tell the White House? My guess is that we will soon learn that it was May of 2012 when the White House first was notified about what was going on, but that is speculation based only upon the normal functioning of the bureaucracy. Speculation or not, however, it is a good bet to be true.
No comments:
Post a Comment