Draft IG report: Managers involved March 2010 forward in IRS focus on conservative groups

posted at 12:01 pm on May 13, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

The timeline from the draft Inspector General report on IRS political targeting of conservative groups has been obtained by ABC News, and it tells a more disturbing story than Lois Lerner tried to push in her strange press conference on Friday.  First, as ABC and the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this morning, the effort began more than three years ago, not just in 2012.  The timeline shows that rather than just a few rogue agents violating guidelines, this effort included management almost from the start, emphases mine:

  • Around March 1, 2010 - The Determinations Unit Group Manager asked a specialist to search for other Tea Party or similar organizations’ applications in order to determine the scope of the issue. The specialist continued to complete searches for additional cases until the precursor to the BOLO listing was issued in May 2010.
  • April 1-2, 2010 - The new Acting Manager, Technical Unit, suggested the need for a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases. The Determinations Unit Program Manager agreed.
  • July 2010 - Determinations Unit management requested its specialists to be on the lookout for Tea Party applications.

Here’s an interesting entry:

  • August 2010 - The responsibility for applications involving potential political campaign intervention was moved to a different team of specialists as part of a group realignment within the Determinations Unit.

And another, just before the midterm elections:

  • October 26, 2010 - Determinations Unit personnel raised concerns to the Technical Unit with the approach being used to develop the Tea Party cases: Why does the Technical Unit need to review every additional information request letter when a template letter could be approved and used on all the cases?

Clearly, this wasn’t just a few rogue agents going off on their own.  As far back as three years ago, two different IRS units were coordinating efforts and raising questions for management to answer.  Managers made decisions about the effort to pursue Tea Party groups as early as April 2010.

Almost two years later, IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman told not one but two House committees that nothing of the sort was transpiring.  Chris Moody at Yahoo News reminds us of both:

News reports about how the Internal Revenue Service applied heavier scrutiny on conservative political organizations applying for tax-exempt status have pointed to a March 22, 2012 House Ways and Means oversight subcommittee hearing in which IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman denied any wrongdoing. But that wasn’t the first time lawmakers grilled him about the IRS’ practices.

During a Financial Services subcommittee hearing earlier that month, on March 7, 2012, Georgia Republican Rep. Tom Graves questioned Shulman about similar concerns. Shulman pushed back against allegations that the IRS was targeting groups that advocated for limited government, just as he did at the subsequent Ways and Means subcommittee hearing.

At the March 7 hearing, Graves pointed to concerns from tea party groups that the IRS had unfairly scrutinized them with burdensome questions because of their political ideology. Shulman, who was appointed to the post by President George W. Bush and whose five-year term as IRS commissioner ended in Nov. 2012, told Graves that the agency had followed standard protocol and said allegations that specific groups were being targeted were “off.”

“Can you help put any of those concerns to rest today that these groups are specifically being targeted because of their political activities or their opposition to the administration’s policies?” Graves asked, according a transcript of the exchange.

“It is a good question. I am glad you asked it because I think there has been lots of information flying around in the press, and I think it is important that people put it in perspective,” Shulman said, and went on to explain the agency’s process for examining applications non-profit status. “When we decide to do an examination, we pride ourselves on being a non-political, non-partisan agency. We are given these complex rules that have things like political activity written into the tax code that does not allow you to do certain things or else you jeopardize your tax exemption. We have set up very clear safeguards, for determinate exams.

“This notion that we are targeting anyone, I think, is off,” Shulman added, “because these people are going through an application process that they voluntarily decided to do. It is not required under the law.”

Bear in mind, again, that the IRS chief counsel had participated in at least one meeting in August 2011 where the targeting was discussed.  It strains credulity to believe that the IRS’ top lawyer would not have notified the commissioner of this activity, unless the chief counsel knew the commissioner was already aware of it.  The structured manner in which the IRS approached this effort, as shown in the IG timeline, makes minced meat of the spin Lerner attempted on Friday that no one knew what was going on until just recently and that it had only started last year.

Max Baucus pledged today that his Senate Finance Committee will hold hearings soon on the IRS’ activities:

Sen. Max Baucus says the Senate Finance Committee will investigate the IRS targeting conservative political groups, joining a growing list of congressional panels looking into the matter.

The Finance Committee would be the first in the Democratic-controlled Senate to announce an investigation. The Montana Democrat is the panel’s chairman. …

“These actions by the IRS are an outrageous abuse of power and a breach of the public’s trust,” Baucus said. “Targeting groups based on their political views is not only inappropriate but it is intolerable.”

Baucus said the agency should conduct its job “without passion or prejudice.”

“We need to get to the bottom of what happened here,” Baucus said. “I want to see all the facts. We need to know who knew what, and exactly what mistakes were made.”

That assumes “mistakes” were made at all.  This looks like a very deliberate and systematic effort to target the Obama administration’s critics for IRS abuse.  The question isn’t whether “mistakes” were made — it’s why the top official in the IRS misled Congress, and in whose service that was done.

Update: A little dot-connecting on Twitter:

Yes … convenient.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I just learned about it on friday
-dear leader

cmsinaz on May 13, 2013 at 12:06 PM

every name associated with this should lose their jobs and pensions…as a start

DanMan on May 13, 2013 at 12:07 PM

Mistakes were made? What are they going to use the Steve Urkel Defense? “Did I do that?”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya2xifdO_l0

geojed on May 13, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Remember, readers, how true equality can’t happen with an election, but only with equal accountability.

rogerb on May 13, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Put all the honchos in the dock under oath and ask them flat out:

“Perjury is punishable by prison time. So did you instigate these investigations on your own or were you ordered to by someone in the administration. Again, perjury is a crime and we are not yet done collecting documents and testimony, so choose your response carefully.”

Bishop on May 13, 2013 at 12:10 PM

We need to know who knew what, and exactly what mistakes were made.”

That assumes “mistakes” were made at all. This looks like a very deliberate and systematic effort to target the Obama administration’s critics for IRS abuse.

Mistakes? Yes, mistakes were made. As in, How come this wasn’t buried better? Why wasn’t their better subterfuge to keep this from coming out? Why wasn’t the program more successful in stopping Tea Party group applications? You bet your sweet bippy that mistakes were made and Democrats want to know about them.

parke on May 13, 2013 at 12:11 PM

Well, it would be in the GOPe interest to target the tea partiers especially since the gave GOPe incumbents a run for the RNC’s money in 10 and 12.

AH_C on May 13, 2013 at 12:11 PM

The Finance Committee would be the first in the Democratic-controlled Senate to announce an investigation.

Yeah, if Dirty Harry lets them.

GarandFan on May 13, 2013 at 12:12 PM

heads should be going rolling

tom daschle concerned on May 13, 2013 at 12:15 PM

every name associated with this should lose their jobs and pensions…as a start

DanMan on May 13, 2013 at 12:07 PM

Called before congress and answer questions under oath…waterboarding would be applicable as far as I am concerned, but under oath is a start.

When “common” bureaucrats are looking at prison terms, it’s amazing how much information you can get out of them.

right2bright on May 13, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Somebody approved all those written questionnaires, and somebody approved the list of groups that would receive them. It should not be very hard to find out who.

rockmom on May 13, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Mistakes?

So where is the ‘extra scrutiny’ towards other groups? Like those supporting gun restrictions or Obamacare or any of the other litany of ’causes’ ginned up by the Left? Could you imagine that sort of ‘extra scrutiny’ under a Republican President? The Left would be pointing out human rights violations:

- a chilling effect on the freedom to assemble,
- a chilling effect on the right of free speech,
- a chilling effect on the ability to redress government by citizens…

I point those same things out right now so that the LEFT doesn’t lose ITS RIGHTS by its partisan support. Because that WILL COME when they are no longer useful to a tyrant, and then they will bemoan about how they can’t get ANY WORD OUT because of the threat of government investigation.

This is an attack on First Amendment rights by the federal government and heads should roll, and the President should be doing his DUTY by ordering investigations with an eye towards prosecution and FIRING PEOPLE involved throughout the entire chain of command that led to this plus everyone else in the know who DID NOT blow the whistle.

Too bad the pro-tyrant and pro-partisan government Left thinks that restricting the rights of others is a ‘win’ for them, while it is a loss for everyone and a blow against human freedom.

ajacksonian on May 13, 2013 at 12:20 PM

At this point – WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

Southgirl on May 13, 2013 at 12:21 PM

The liberals working in the IRS don’t need guidance from Obama.
It’s a mantra in big liberal government – grow the government at all costs.
They might lose some soldiers but it must march forward.
Until the purps are in a federal pen getting gang raped – it will continue.

redguy on May 13, 2013 at 12:22 PM

The question isn’t whether “mistakes” were made

Sort of like calling the Mississippi River a crick there Max.

antipc on May 13, 2013 at 12:22 PM

At this point – WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

Southgirl on May 13, 2013 at 12:21 PM

No it’s – WHAT DIFFERENCE, At this point, DOES IT MAKE?

redguy on May 13, 2013 at 12:23 PM

heads should be going rolling

tom daschle concerned on May 13, 2013 at 12:15 PM

Heads will roll, but it’ll be low level patsies.

forest on May 13, 2013 at 12:23 PM

When comparing this IRS “adventure,” it should be noted that the Nixon White House reportedly looked at tax returns of individuals. They never directly went after anybody using IRS personnel, as the IRS has already admitted in this case.

This is much worse than anything Nixon did with the IRS.

J_Crater on May 13, 2013 at 12:23 PM

And who leaked what to Dear Liar’s campaign?

rbj on May 13, 2013 at 12:23 PM

From CNN:
“If in fact IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that’s outrageous and there’s no place for it — and they have to be held fully accountable,” President Barack Obama told reporters today.

hungrymongo on May 13, 2013 at 12:24 PM

Obama says first learned about the IRS controversy from news reports. He called the purported targeting of conservative groups by IRS personnel “outrageous.” The IRS has to have “absolute integrity, ” Obama adds.
“You don’t want the IRS ever being perceived to be biased,” Obama said.

So, this went on for 3 years of the Obama Administration, and the White House knew nothing ? Who is in charge of this government ?

J_Crater on May 13, 2013 at 12:25 PM

Obama says first learned about the IRS controversy from news reports.

Notice that this says virtually nothing. Which reports ? When ??

J_Crater on May 13, 2013 at 12:26 PM

Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on May 13, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Imainge – they audited and went after the words “teach constitution”.

The US is Russia now, on purpose. The left achieved what Nikita Khrushchev promised. The left took the rope and hung the land. America is dangling on a huge rope, with the world laughing at her, for many good reasons.

Such a stupid people deserve the charlatanic thugs they brung/kept.

Schadenfreude on May 13, 2013 at 12:29 PM

Quoted in the other IRS post: “The public, it turned out, was tired of scandal, investigations, and conflict.”

Darn tootin’! I am seriously disgusted and dismayed by all the scandal, investigations, and conflict — I want to see all the flummery done away with and we can cut to the chase of putting miscreants behind bars. Why does Jon Corzine still walk free? Why didn’t the House nab Holder and tuck him away instead of slapping his wrist? Why aren’t the low-level IRS employees already under indictment so they have good reason to sing out about the upper-level employees.

With reference to Bishop’s scenario above — the time for that was when they last testified. Now, it should be: “we know you lied to us last time and we will convict you of perjury. Do you have anything to say to us now that may warrant leniency in sentencing?”

cthulhu on May 13, 2013 at 12:29 PM

The incredible Liar in Chief said “I found out on Friday” about the IRS. Such narcissistic charlatanry must and will be punished. Too bad it will be too late for the land.

Schadenfreude on May 13, 2013 at 12:30 PM

every name associated with this should lose their jobs and pensions…as a start

DanMan on May 13, 2013 at 12:07 PM

I am well beyond this as punishment, but I choose not to be specific.

VibrioCocci on May 13, 2013 at 12:31 PM

Issa is a moron of incredible proportions. Only Boehner is a bigger one.

Schadenfreude on May 13, 2013 at 12:31 PM

I am well beyond this as punishment, but I choose not to be specific.

VibrioCocci on May 13, 2013 at 12:31 PM

I want them haunted/hunted by Richard Nixon, day and night, eternally.

Schadenfreude on May 13, 2013 at 12:33 PM

Somebody approved all those written questionnaires, and somebody approved the list of groups that would receive them. It should not be very hard to find out who.

rockmom on May 13, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Yeah, but you’re making the assumption that somebody will ask the questions that need asking. I’m sure the administration intends to make this all about rogue GS-8s and not institutionalized partisanship.

Happy Nomad on May 13, 2013 at 12:36 PM

I just learned about it on friday
-dear leader

cmsinaz on May 13, 2013 at 12:06 PM

President Obama Sergeant Schultz: “I know nothing.”

BuckeyeSam on May 13, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Here’s another conclusion we can draw: there are so many layers of “management” and “units” that no one actually has to do any management; you can always assume that it is being done by a different layer. Managerial bloat means less management actually happens…which in this case leads to hopes of plausible deniability on the part of wrongdoers.

HakerA on May 13, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Max Baucus pledged today that his Senate Finance Committee will hold hearings soon on the IRS’ activities:

The engineer of the ObamaCare trainwreck is on it.

Good news. Whooooooo oooooo whooooooooo!

BobMbx on May 13, 2013 at 12:40 PM

It started three years ago. Government employee who report to the President illegally used the power of the government to target the President’s political enemies. But the President and all of his people knew nothing about it until now.

This is close to Nixonian. Time for a special investigator/prosecutor who can subpoena people, offer them immunity, and question them under oath. Wouldn’t the MSM be screaming for this if the President had an R after his name and the IRS targets were lefties and Dems?

Dear Leader should support such an investigation assuming he had nothing to do with what the IRS did, right?

farsighted on May 13, 2013 at 12:41 PM

I just learned about it on friday
-dear leader

Barak Milhous Obama.

Happy Nomad on May 13, 2013 at 12:41 PM

This is close to Nixonian.

farsighted on May 13, 2013 at 12:41 PM

That comparison is unfair to Nixon! RMN was lightyears better a President, father, man, and human being than the Kenyan scumbag in office now.

Happy Nomad on May 13, 2013 at 12:43 PM

Obama: “man….how did you get this information?…its terrific!”

Geithner: “you don’t want to know…[wink wink]”

Obama: “oh…its one of those…..get this to Harry double-quick, and have someone audit that bastard farmer”

BobMbx on May 13, 2013 at 12:43 PM

The liberal dream:
Government is so large that no one person can ever be held accountable for not knowing what is going on inside of the government because it is so large.

Why do we keep letting government officials off the hook for absolving themselves of responsibility by claiming ignorance due to the vast nature and far reaches of the federal government while they simultaneously advocate and beg for an even larger federal government?

weaselyone on May 13, 2013 at 12:44 PM

Some msdnc hack says the NAACP was audited during W term where was the outrage then

cmsinaz on May 13, 2013 at 12:47 PM

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:

This administration came into office believing its own bullshit. These people, Obama, Holder, Jackson and the rest, were sure they had at least six years and potentially much more in which to beat the GOP and sundry other opponents to death, substantially unsupervised. They had Congress, they had the press, there was nothing and no one able to stop them.

And so they weren’t necessarily careful or ethical or legal about how they went about it, because they were sure that by the time that anyone might be put in a position to do anything about it – maybe midterms in the second term at the earliest – everything from aggressive racial preferences to CO2 regulation to union control of labor laws would be fait accompli, firmly entrenched and protected by an activist left Supreme Court.

What difference, at that point, would it have made how they did what they did if it’d take, at best, a decade or two to unwind it?

The 2010 midterms threw grit in the gears, it’s done nowhere near as much as we’d like to stop the process but it’s at least slowed it to a crawl. And we’ve had a little – just a little – peek at all the grubby little shortcuts and strongarming and outright crime this adminstration put into place in the first couple years to make it happen.

JEM on May 13, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Some msdnc hack says the NAACP was audited during W term where was the outrage then

cmsinaz on May 13, 2013 at 12:47 PM

There was plenty of MSM coverage and “outrage” over it (see USA Today article below). It was also thoroughly investigated. Can we now continue to dig into this case that involved about 200 more groups than that one singular instance back in 2004? Thanks to the lib talking head for pointing out that there was plenty of outrage back then so we now have justification for continuing this as a bipartisan effort.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-30-naacp-irs-probe_x.htm

weaselyone on May 13, 2013 at 12:51 PM

This was one of the articles of impeachment raised against Nixon.

The Republicans in the House should do two things right now:

1) Start talking about impeachment…but don’t actually do it.

2) Come up with legislation to slap the IRS down – ideally embracing truly radical tax reform.

Oh, and they should specifically always talk in the context of “The Obama Administration’s targeting of opposition political groups through the IRS”.

This is a serious scandal and the Republicans need a spine for once. Impeaching Obama isn’t going anywhere, at least yet. But they can make him pay a major political price, but only if they do something concrete.

So make him defend the IRS and the current tax structure, now.

18-1 on May 13, 2013 at 12:56 PM

That comparison is unfair to Nixon! RMN was lightyears better a President, father, man, and human being than the Kenyan scumbag in office now.

Happy Nomad on May 13, 2013 at 12:43 PM

I agree.

I was using derogatory leftist term “Nixonian”, a term they coined and still use, to illustrate their hypocrisy.

There is no way the Dems, lefties, and MSM would not be using that term and screaming for a special investigator and prosecutor if this IRS scandal was flipped politically. It would be front page above the fold news in the NYT for most of the next year, at least. With updates on the R’s Benghazi-gate cover-up they used to steal the election below the fold.

farsighted on May 13, 2013 at 12:58 PM

“This notion that we are targeting anyone, I think, is off,” Shulman added, “because these people are going through an application process that they voluntarily decided to do. It is not required under the law.”

So Schulman is suggesting that organizations don’t need to apply for tax exempt status? Certainly not, but I can understand how an organization’s view of the purpose of a law gets corrupted over time by their power to administer those laws. An organization is definitely required by law to apply in order to inform contributors that their contributions are considered charitable by the government and can be deducted in part or full on their tax forms.

Dusty on May 13, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Dusty on May 13, 2013 at 1:00 PM

I think what he was trying to say is that no one is required to apply for exempt status; you can if you want to obtain that status.

In other words, no one forces you to put a “Kick Me” sticker on your back, but if you put it there yourself you can’t complain when the IRS kicks you around.

BobMbx on May 13, 2013 at 1:04 PM

I just learned about it on friday
-dear leader

cmsinaz on May 13, 2013 at 12:06 PM

President Obama Sergeant Schultz: “I know nothing.”

Barry, “I just say what I’m advised to say and sign what I’m advised to sign, so I needn’t know anything about the mundane day to day operational stuff and clutter my mind. Anyway, having to know all that stuff would be below my pay grade.”

hawkeye54 on May 13, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Some msdnc hack says the NAACP was audited during W term where was the outrage then

cmsinaz on May 13, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Not even close to being an apples-to-apples comparison.

The NAACP is a 501(c)(3) organization. Contributions to the NAACP are tax deductible for the donor. If the IRS doesn’t monitor 501(c)(3)s for partisan political activity, political speech effectively becomes tax deductible.

Contributions to 501(c)(4)s like the Tea Party are not tax deductible to the donor.

blammm on May 13, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Obama says first learned about the IRS controversy from news reports.

Are we really supposed to believe that the “smartest man in the room,” the “Chicago Jesus,” the “Magic Negro” had some part of his administration running rogue for 3 years without somebody calling the White House to find out what was going on ?

Are we to believe that President Obama had been hoodwinked ?

Are we to believe that President Obama had been had ?

Are we to believe that President Obama had been took ?

Are we to believe that President Obama had been led astray, run amok ?

Are we to believe that President Obama had been bamboozled ?

(excuse me while a rub my middle finger on my neck)

J_Crater on May 13, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Contributions to the NAACP are tax deductible for the donor. If the IRS doesn’t monitor 501(c)(3)s for partisan political activity, political speech effectively becomes tax deductible. blammm on May 13, 2013 at 1:05 PM

And there’s nothing at all political about the National Association for the Advancement of Certain People.

Akzed on May 13, 2013 at 1:08 PM

“This notion that we are targeting anyone, I think, is off,” Shulman added, “because these people are going through an application process that they voluntarily decided to do. It is not required under the law.”

Shulman is trying to defend the indefensible with bureaucratic Orwellian doublespeak BS.

If you form an organization that will generate income, however derived, you must by law determine/declare its tax status. And the IRS must agree with you on that. If you want the IRS to officially agree with your claim of tax exempt status you are by law required to apply for it. Don’t agree? Try forming an organization that generates income, don’t pay taxes on the income, and see what happens.

Also, unless all organizations that apply are treated identically in the review and approval process the ones that are singled out are being profiled and targeted. There must be a legal justification for doing this. What is the legal basis for singling out Tea Party and “patriot” organizations for special extraordinary treatment?

farsighted on May 13, 2013 at 1:22 PM

“…mistakes were made.”

Was that wrong?

Should I not have done that?

I tell you, I gotta plead ignorance on this thing, because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing is frowned upon… – George Costanza

RadClown on May 13, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Thanks weasley and blammm

cmsinaz on May 13, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Time to start “Occupying” IRS buildings.

JimLennon on May 13, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Like I long said.

Reelect then IMPEACH.

The rats are fleeing the ship in droves now.

Steveangell on May 13, 2013 at 1:38 PM

What is the legal basis for singling out Tea Party and “patriot” organizations for special extraordinary treatment?

farsighted on May 13, 2013 at 1:22 PM

Well, ya know, they did spit on those Congressmen at the Obamacare signing, and they did lynch that Kentucky census worker, and they did gun down Gabby Giffords, a theater in Colorado, and a school in Connecticut. Plus a whole bunch of other domestic terrorist attacks that the Right Wing Media like MSNBC and the NYT have squelched.

/sarc /troll

JimLennon on May 13, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Put all the honchos in the dock under oath and ask them flat out:

“Perjury is punishable by prison time. So did you instigate these investigations on your own or were you ordered to by someone in the administration. Again, perjury is a crime and we are not yet done collecting documents and testimony, so choose your response carefully.”

Bishop on May 13, 2013 at 12:10 PM

Unless you’re a DemocRAT either doing the bidding of Dear Leader or Dear Leader himself.

Steve Eggleston on May 13, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Contributions to 501(c)(4)s like the Tea Party are not tax deductible to the donor.

blammm on May 13, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Because unlike c3s, c4s can directly participate in politics.

I’m pretty sure the NAA(L)CP has a c4 subsidiary.

Steve Eggleston on May 13, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Well, ya know, they did spit on those Congressmen at the Obamacare signing, and they did lynch that Kentucky census worker, and they did gun down Gabby Giffords, a theater in Colorado, and a school in Connecticut. Plus a whole bunch of other domestic terrorist attacks that the Right Wing Media like MSNBC and the NYT have squelched.

/sarc /troll

JimLennon on May 13, 2013 at 1:40 PM

It does shed new light on the MSM immediately pointing at right-wing Tea Party types within an hour of the Boston terrorist attack, doesn’t it?

farsighted on May 13, 2013 at 1:52 PM

I’m pretty sure the NAA(L)CP has a c4 subsidiary.

Steve Eggleston on May 13, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Even if that’s true (I’m not going to research that), the investigation was into its 501(c)(3) branch.

blammm on May 13, 2013 at 1:55 PM

blammm on May 13, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Very much noted.

Steve Eggleston on May 13, 2013 at 1:57 PM

How believable is the IG office that is LEAKING parts of their report? In the past, once someone leaks parts the office producing the report, the report is released in it’s entirety. For some reason, the Obama administration is trying to control the release of the actual report while small excerpts are released to their favored propagandists.

Clearly, someone has decided to prop up, and otherwise use, abc news with this propaganda driven reporting.

I wonder if the crack news team at abc news is going to mention that they are part of the Obama administrations release of this latest damaging information?

Freddy on May 13, 2013 at 2:25 PM

I just learned about it on friday
-dear leader

Barak Milhous Obama.

Happy Nomad on May 13, 2013 at 12:41 PM

…in the age of emails that never go away. Congress needs to go after an email dump of all those involved, and watch for email accounts under fake names. I’m sure the REB and Val have several.

slickwillie2001 on May 13, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Who kept this under wraps until after the 2012 election? We can be 100% certain that wasn’t a low ranking group in Cincinnati.

DaMav on May 13, 2013 at 3:04 PM

This will go all the way to Zero. But let’s not lose sight of Benghazi or all the other scandals.

dogsoldier on May 13, 2013 at 3:25 PM

How believable is the IG office that is LEAKING parts of their report? In the past, once someone leaks parts the office producing the report, the report is released in it’s entirety. For some reason, the Obama administration is trying to control the release of the actual report while small excerpts are released to their favored propagandists.

Like the Benghazi panel, first they decide who to blame, THEN they investigate.

dogsoldier on May 13, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Why is the date of the first item on the timeline redacted? I can understand, possibly, the action being redacted, but what justification for redacting the initial date?

MTinMN on May 16, 2013 at 12:30 PM