What did Ruemmler know, and when did she know it?

posted at 10:01 am on May 23, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Two weeks ago, no one had heard of the IRS targeting of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. A week ago, no one in the White House knew anything about it.  My, how things change when the pressure is on.  After finally admitting that White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler knew about the Inspector General investigation weeks before Lois Lerner and IRS Commissioner Steve Miller planted a question at a public event to apologize for its findings (and manipulate the coverage), we subsequently discovered that Ruemmler notified Barack Obama’s chief of staff Denis McDonough.

That prompted the question of when Obama himself was informed of the scandal, a question further provoked by Obama’s careful parsing of the question into an answer about when he found out the contents of the IG report.  Today, the Washington Post offers up a more robust version of the White House’s latest limited hangout on the matter:

As soon as White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler heard about an upcoming inspector general’s report on the Internal Revenue Service, she knew she had a problem.

The notice Ruemmler saw on April 24 gave her a thumbnail sketch of a disturbing finding: that the IRS had improperly targeted tea party and other conservative groups. She shared the news with White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and other senior White House aides, who all recognized the danger of the findings.

But they agreed that it would be best not to share it with President Obama until the independent audit was completed and made public, in part to protect him from even the appearance of trying to influence an investigation. …

But Ruemmler and McDonough’s careful plan for the IRS was upended on May 10, when Lois Lerner, a senior official at the agency, broke the news by admitting that the IRS had given extra scrutiny to conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.

Senior White House officials were stunned to see the IRS trying to get ahead of its own story — and in doing so, creating a monstrous communications disaster for an administration that appeared not to know what its agencies were up to.

Does anyone else see the glaring contradictions in this narrative?  First, according to the strategy as explained here, the decision was to share this conclusion among a wide variety of senior White House staffers — but keep the President in the dark so it didn’t appear he was interfering with a report that was already complete. Why wouldn’t that also apply to the senior staffers involved?   After all, if the report was to be somehow quashed or skewed, Obama wouldn’t be the one to pick up the phone to do it — and risk getting impeached for obstruction of justice.  It would be one of Obama’s senior aides making that call, up to and including McDonough, if it was to happen at all.

Second, according to this article, the strategy was to let the IRS publicize the report and then react to it.  Then, suddenly, they’re shocked, shocked when the IRS publicizes it ahead of the release.  It “upended” their “careful plan,” which apparently was to tell a bunch of people in the White House except the man in charge, and then stay quiet.  How, then, did the release “upend” a “careful plan”?

But just how complete was the report when Ruemmler first learned of it?  We already know that the investigation was completed almost a year ago, a few months before the election.  The Daily Caller points to a number of meetings between Ruemmler and Treasury Counsel Christopher J. Meade last fall:

Although White House Chief Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler claims to have learned about the IRS audit scandal only last month, she had three unprecedented one-on-one meetings last year with the Treasury Department’s chief lawyer, who has known about the inspector general’s investigation of the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative nonprofits since at least June 2012. …

Christopher J. Meade, Treasury Chief Counsel, met with Ruemmler on September 27th, December 11th, and December 13th, 2012, according to White House Visitor Records requests. The two had never met one-on-one prior to these meetings. …

Meade was one of the first members of President Barack Obama’s administration to find out about the IRS investigation in June 2012, when he became the Treasury Department’s acting general counsel.

The two also met with fifteen other people on July 2nd, 2012 and with fifteen other people on July 17th.

The unusual timing of the meetings suggest that Ruemmler and potentially other White House members may have known of the IRS Inspector General Report months earlier than has been reported.

It’s possible the topic never came up, although that seems a little difficult to believe.  The scope of the potential damage when it was revealed that the IRS had harassed filers on the basis of their political beliefs must have been obvious.  That’s especially true of those who kept postponing the report, and the two IRS Commissioners who independently knew of the targeting but never bothered to inform Congress, even though Congress had previously demanded answers from both on the complaints.  If Meade knew about the investigation, would he have just sat quietly through several meetings with the top lawyer in the White House and let his bosses get blindsided by it?

It’s possible, but … I wouldn’t bet in that direction.

Update: For some reason, I keep writing “Neil McDonough” when Obama’s CoS is Denis McDonough.  I think I did that yesterday, too.  I’ll go back and fix it if I did. It’s one of those name tics that I can’t shake for some reason, and I apologize for the error.

Update: The meetings started in the fall, not the summer.

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

Comment pages: 1 2 3

To parallel it with an issue that thrives in conservative circles, is racial profiling only/always racist? Or are they in fact not the same thing?

verbaluce on May 23, 2013 at 12:04 PM

The only valid use of race is to catch a criminal who matches that description.

To use that parallel you assume right wing groups are criminals. that the words used were the signs of criminal activity.

petunia on May 23, 2013 at 12:31 PM

I say it is high time to find and punish the Political Witches who are hunting innocent Americans exercising their Constitutional rights!!!!

petunia on May 23, 2013 at 12:33 PM

What I’d like to hear (besides I quit) is this:

“I would like to announce that after careful consideration, I have appointed Mitt Romney as C.O.O. For the USA. he will be assuming all day to day operations and bringing in his own staff to turnaround this Administration like he so successfully did for the Olympics. I will if course, retain my normal duties: campaigning, vacationing, golf, media availabilities. Did I mention Golf? OK Thanks bye.”

can_con on May 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM

To parallel it with an issue that thrives in conservative circles, is racial profiling only/always racist? Or are they in fact not the same thing?

verbaloon on May 23, 2013 at 12:04 PM

Wow, changing the subject? A Leftist only does that when they know they are losing the debate.

A+

It could be argued that racial profiling is stereotyping. In that case, you folks on the Left profile all the time, with absolutely no guilt. See “all members of the Tea Party are Racist!”, or “all southern Conservatives are racists!”, ad infinitum.

It could also credibly be argued that Affirmative Action is racial profiling, and thus also Racist. Yet you Leftists created that institution, and worship it to this day.

Any more questions?

Del Dolemonte on May 23, 2013 at 12:35 PM

We know they weren’t, and so does he…

MadisonConservative on May 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM

I wouldn’t discount the possibility that he has emotionally convinced himself that left wing groups were indeed targeted. Because they must have been. Because the left is always correct by virtue of being the left. But we’re splitting hairs here, hard to know for sure.

Fenris on May 23, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Largely agree, but ‘troll’ means they’re saying things they don’t actually believe just to get a reaction.

Fenris on May 23, 2013 at 12:19 PM

That is a very narrow, antiquated, and somewhat obsolete definition of a troll.

The more recent commonly used definition is broader.

Above all else a troll desperately seeks attention and does it by deliberately trying to disrupt. The disruption attempt can take many forms — broad brushed insults and mocking, off-topic hijacking, “concern”, outrageous assertions made with little or no supporting evidence, regurgitating contrary talking points without backing them up, race/bigot baiting, etc.

Not all trolls troll all of the time, but trolls almost always project contempt and a self-righteous sense superiority.

HotLips, a pure troll, does all of this almost all of the time.

farsighted on May 23, 2013 at 12:36 PM

farsighted on May 23, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Ya, well, I’m old and antiquated. If somebody is actually sincere, and doesn’t perceive themselves as disrupting, but merely trying to knock some sense into people’s heads, then they’re not a troll.

Fenris on May 23, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Are you also claiming that leaking IRS documents leaked to liberal 501c groups wasn’t politically motivated?

Not yet proven, but was Romney’s tax info leaked to Reid?

NOT YET PROVEN?! Good LAWD! Hellen freakin’ Keller could see this is a politically motivated CRIME perpetrated solely for political reasons.

Who was this administration’s worst nightmare in 2008?
- The TEA Party.
Who are the Libs/Progressives/Socialists’ natural enemies?
- Conservatives / The TEA Party
WHO has Obama/Libs been ranting about, attempting to smear, attempting to eliminate/have investigated/silence?
- TEA Party / Conservatives
WHO were Democrats calling on the IRS to check out more closely?
– The TEA Party / Conservatives…
WHO has Obama snubbed, been caught talking bad about when he thought he was off microphone?
– Isreal
WHAT GROUPS did the IRS target, attack, audit, intimidate, deny rights to?
– TEA Party, Conservatives, & Jewish groups (supporting Israel)
Whose Presidential Campaign Co-Chair used personal tax info of their opponent to conduct a personal/political attack upon him?
– OBAMA’S Co-Chair! (He got the info but never told Obama, like everyone else connected to Obama?!)
WHO benefitted when HARRY REID obtained Romey’s personal tax info & used it against him in a public attack during an interview/press conference?
– Obama
WHO was visited by Shulman at least several times during his 118 visits to the White House?
Obama

Now connect the dots….

WHO/what administration would (and has) use both the DOJ & IRS (and HHS, ATF, FBI, EPA…) to keep track of, intimidate, harrass, attack, pnish, accuse of espionage & of being ‘subversive’ anyone who considers themselves a Conservative, TEA Party member, ‘Patriot’, ‘pro-Constitution’ American or any media that opposes his agenda, uncovers & reports on his (MANY massive failures / scandals?

Ummm…help me out with this one, somebody….

easyt65 on May 23, 2013 at 12:43 PM

Thanks for fixing that.

VegasRick on May 23, 2013 at 12:21 PM

haha :)

I don’t think he is even as smart as I thought he is.

VegasRick on May 23, 2013 at 12:24 PM

Considering that verbaloser is 100% pure condensed stupidity, it isn’t possible to be less intelligent. Yet, non-nonpartisan exists, proving that it is possible…

Anti-Control on May 23, 2013 at 12:45 PM

If somebody is actually sincere, and doesn’t perceive themselves as disrupting, but merely trying to knock some sense into people’s heads, then they’re not a troll.

Fenris on May 23, 2013 at 12:39 PM

First comment on the thread.

Ahhhh…a new bogeyman.
Has Malkin manged to find any unflattering pictures of her yet?

verbaluce on May 23, 2013 at 10:10 AM

farsighted on May 23, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Ya, well, I’m old and antiquated. If somebody is actually sincere, and doesn’t perceive themselves as disrupting, but merely trying to knock some sense into people’s heads, then they’re not a troll.

Fenris on May 23, 2013 at 12:39 PM

I, for one, can see your point. There are honest liberals out there, people who share the same values as I do when it comes to matters of law, the Constitution, and many things that are uniquely American. We simply disagree on how to interpret parts of the Constitution. And that’s fine. I bet they’re all of my generation (50+) only.

But the cast and crew of liberals we have here is well-proven to many minds that their purpose is to disrupt, annoy, and otherwise be contrary for its own sake. They are solidly in the tank to protect Obama and anything attached to him by any means possible, instead of honestly admitting this IRS thing has merit in and of itself.

They don’t look to the future. I want the trampling of liberties by the IRS to be punished, with the American people telling any future Administration we won’t sit for it from them, either — Party affiliation aside. I wouldn’t sit for a Conservative Administration doing this sort of thing to liberal or any other groups, either. And if I won’t tolerate it being done to my political opponents, I’m sure as heck not going to allow it to be done to my side, either.

The trolls here don’t get that. That’s why we call them trolls.

Liam on May 23, 2013 at 12:48 PM

But the cast and crew of liberals we have here is well-proven to many minds that their purpose is to disrupt, annoy, and otherwise be contrary for its own sake…

The trolls here don’t get that. That’s why we call them trolls.

Liam on May 23, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Right.

Posting history plays a large part in determining if someone is basically a troll.

farsighted on May 23, 2013 at 12:52 PM

The investigation here (or so Issa claims) is to determine if this was in fact politically motivated. We know there was an ideological theme to those who were singled out for further review…but was the motivation indeed political.

verbaluce on May 23, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Luckily enough, it would be a simple matter for the IRS to prove that there was no political motivation involved. Only two things are needed:

1) Release any internal emails or memos that demonstrate “confusion” on the part of IRS personnel about how to handle the 501(c)(4) applications for groups with the phrases “Tea Party” and “Patriot” in their names during the period in question.

2) Release any internal emails or memos that indicate the IRS’s responses to this “confusion”.

But we all know those emails and memos don’t exist; therefore, we all know that ideology was the driving force between why right-wing groups were hamstrung and badgered while left-wing groups sailed through the approval process.

And what was the end result of that difference? Left-wing groups were allowed to go about their business in pursuit of their 2012 political activities, while right-wing groups were not.

That is the definition of “political motivation”.

rvastar on May 23, 2013 at 12:53 PM

But surely you can acknowledge that this does warrant an investigation without it being unfairly called a witch hunt by people like you.

If you can’t acknowledge this, then it’s obvious that you’re just trolling.

blink on May 23, 2013 at 12:21 PM

It warrants an investigation. And it warrants action.

verbaluce on May 23, 2013 at 12:55 PM

farsighted on May 23, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Yes, he sees that as a legitimate comeback. HotAir has been know to put up unflattering photos. But so it’s a little funny, haha, and then you move on to the real argument. Lefties truly believe that is the argument. Lefties are all about emotional arguments. You have not come to realize how truly irrational and depraved lefties are.

Fenris on May 23, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Ahhhh…a new bogeyman.
Has Malkin manged to find any unflattering pictures of her yet?

verbaluce on May 23, 2013 at 10:10 AM

http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/294908_387452721371512_187309781_n.jpg

davidk on May 23, 2013 at 1:00 PM

There are honest liberals out there…

Few and far between.

But the cast and crew of liberals we have here is well-proven to many minds that their purpose is to disrupt, annoy, and otherwise be contrary for its own sake…

Liam on May 23, 2013 at 12:48 PM

You probably think I’m being less harsh on the lefties than you. Maybe, I dunno. But in reality they are more contemptible than trolls. Blissfully ignorant, this is what Banana Republics are made of. This is where we are headed. No moral center, no rational view of the world, just their emotions. Somebody here called them “gimmiecrats”, it fits.

Fenris on May 23, 2013 at 1:01 PM

You have not come to realize how truly irrational and depraved lefties are.

Fenris on May 23, 2013 at 12:56 PM

You don’t know me very well.

At any rate, HA tolerates trolls and trolling. As far as I can tell it is not a banning offense. Trolls can be entertaining, and many people like playing with them.

So pointing out that someone is a troll or is trolling doesn’t really matter. And I’ve rarely seen a troll that didn’t have at least a few fans and/or defenders.

The PTB on HA decide when a troll has gone too far, and I have no idea how they do that.

farsighted on May 23, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Also, NONE Of this explains why there are still Tea Party groups who are STILL waiting to be given status. The investigation is over, the report is out, people are in trouble for it, and yet these groups are still waiting.

What, are they trying to drag this into December 2014 so they can say, “See, the Tea Party is dead just like we said”?

UnderstandingisPower on May 23, 2013 at 10:12 AM

A question I have also thought but have seen no one voice other than us spectators.

TerryW on May 23, 2013 at 1:06 PM

No moral center, no rational view of the world, just their emotions. Somebody here called them “gimmiecrats”, it fits.

Fenris on May 23, 2013 at 1:01 PM

I like that term!

Worst detail of what you rightly wrote is that many of them were born into ‘white privilege’, or make a lot of money in the entertainment industry. They all feel they’re ‘owed’ something despite their wealth, then run around telling everyone how terrible the world is when they can afford to jet around the planet while doing so.

Bono is my oldest example of that. I’ve called him a ‘panhandler in a Bond Street suit’ for years.

Liam on May 23, 2013 at 1:09 PM

You don’t know me very well…

farsighted on May 23, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Okay, that was an unfair comment from me. But your list of things trolls do, you (seem to) think they’re doing it consciously, with malice aforethought. I say they really are just that irrational. e.g. regurgitating talking points? They are literally regurgitating, probably don’t even remember where they heard it, or even that they heard it elsewhere.

Oh well, this is a side issue. I have to admit enjoying arguing a bit, maybe that makes me a troll.

Fenris on May 23, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Oh well, this is a side issue. I have to admit enjoying arguing a bit, maybe that makes me a troll.

Fenris on May 23, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Do you have a bridge to live under? If not, we can sell you one. Cheap. (just kidding)

Your Conservative bona fides are pretty well set, from what I’ve seen.

Liam on May 23, 2013 at 1:12 PM

farsighted on May 23, 2013 at 12:36 PM
Fenris on May 23, 2013 at 12:39 PM

I don’t really get defensive about the ‘troll’ label.
As much as I don’t feel it applies to me, I could understand how some my have another view.
I endeavor to avoid being strident in my remarks, but I sometimes fail at that.
I could hang out over at Kos or Huff and get plenty of ‘that’s right!’and pats on the back – and that’s of course an experience many of you have here.
However much I may be a glutton for punishment, I am not insincere.
And I mean that sincerely.

verbaluce on May 23, 2013 at 1:13 PM

…then run around telling everyone how terrible the world is when they can afford to jet around the planet while doing so.

Liam on May 23, 2013 at 1:09 PM

Ugh. Al Gore.

Fenris on May 23, 2013 at 1:14 PM

You know the topic of this thread was pretty interesting without all this bickering.

The President’s counsel reports to the President. So if the Chief of Staff didn’t tell, well that isn’t even legal.

petunia on May 23, 2013 at 1:16 PM

You know the topic of this thread was pretty interesting without all this bickering.

The President’s counsel reports to the President. So if the Chief of Staff didn’t tell, well that isn’t even legal.

petunia on May 23, 2013 at 1:16 PM

I can’t speak to the legality, but it sure looks trashy. If I were president, those two heads would have rolled by now.

Liam on May 23, 2013 at 1:18 PM

I could hang out over at Kos or Huff and get plenty of ‘that’s right!’and pats on the back – and that’s of course an experience many of you have here.
 
verbaluce on May 23, 2013 at 1:13 PM

 
Ha. Let’s be honest. You’re here because you get attention. You wouldn’t get any “that’s right!”s or back-patting at Kos or Huff. You’d be an indistinguishable poster saying exactly the same things as all the other posters in a closed system.

rogerb on May 23, 2013 at 1:19 PM

Okay, that was an unfair comment from me. But your list of things trolls do, you (seem to) think they’re doing it consciously, with malice aforethought. I say they really are just that irrational. e.g. regurgitating talking points? They are literally regurgitating, probably don’t even remember where they heard it, or even that they heard it elsewhere.

Oh well, this is a side issue. I have to admit enjoying arguing a bit, maybe that makes me a troll.

Fenris on May 23, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Whatever.

No point continuing this discussion.

farsighted on May 23, 2013 at 1:20 PM

I am not insincere.

I believe that you are sincere. That’s not the problem. The problem is that you aren’t very bright.

blink on May 23, 2013 at 1:19 PM

I don’t know about that sincerity thing. I mean, has the Great Pumpkin visited him? If not… :-)

Liam on May 23, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Maybe it’s my age, but when I hear the President’s Chief of Staff and White House Counsel are in on it, I have flashbacks to Haldeman and Ehrlichman, and snippets of conversations about screwing political enemies and such. See how that turned out.

ugottabekiddingme on May 23, 2013 at 1:25 PM

I could hang out over at Kos or Huff …

verbaluce on May 23, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Ha. Let’s be honest. You’re here because you get attention.

rogerb on May 23, 2013 at 1:19 PM

Precisely.

farsighted on May 23, 2013 at 1:26 PM

How is crafting a plan to keep information under wraps different from a cover-up?

And maybe I’m naive, but did no one look at this as anything other than a political problem? Did no one look at this as an existential threat to representative democracy, or even Obamacare for chrissakes, and DO something other than shield Dear Leader from his employee’s malfeasance? Is the Adminstration so devoid of a soul that it just doesn’t care about right and wrong, or is it all simply a matter of Right and Left?

All questions rhetorical.

Kenz on May 23, 2013 at 1:38 PM

…then run around telling everyone how terrible the world is when they can afford to jet around the planet while doing so.

Liam on May 23, 2013 at 1:09 PM

Ugh. Al Gore.

Fenris on May 23, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Indeed.
See…we don’t disagree on all.
Or maybe you think you like Al Gore less than I do.
But you don’t.

verbaluce on May 23, 2013 at 1:39 PM

verbaluce on May 23, 2013 at 11:32 AM
But somehow it all just happened randomly, fortuitously for the Democrats.

Fenris on May 23, 2013 at 11:43 AM

It’s just like evolution (not that I personally have a problem with evolution per se)!! Stuff just happens randomly and only looks like it was thought-out and designed after the fact.

Nutstuyu on May 23, 2013 at 1:46 PM

…then run around telling everyone how terrible the world is when they can afford to jet around the planet while doing so.

Liam on May 23, 2013 at 1:09 PM

Ugh. Al Gore.

Fenris on May 23, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Indeed.
See…we don’t disagree on all.
Or maybe you think you like Al Gore less than I do.
But you don’t.

verbaluce on May 23, 2013 at 1:39 PM

I think I see a p*ssing contest in the future… LOL

Liam on May 23, 2013 at 1:56 PM

farsighted on May 23, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Yep. Always look at the first post of a lefty to see if they’re making any coherent point or argument. If not, look to see if they make sweeping generalizations about conservatives or dismiss the legitimacy of interest in the issue at hand.

Now, I’ll concede that there are people on our side who post in the same manner, but participating in an echo chamber does not make one a troll. A troll seeks attention.

MadisonConservative on May 23, 2013 at 1:58 PM

verbaluce on May 23, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Start out mean, then make ‘em keen?

You’re a very low-grade troll. Do better.

MadisonConservative on May 23, 2013 at 1:59 PM

That prompted the question of when Obama himself was informed of the scandal, a question further provoked by Obama’s careful parsing of the question into an answer about when he found out the contents of the IG report.

Ed, I’m late to the party, but this isn’t quite right. Obama did parse his answer, but the reporter did not ask Obama when he was informed of the scandal.

Here is how it went:

Q: “Can you assure the American people that nobody in the White House knew about the agency’s actions before your Counsel’s Office found out on April 22nd?”

A: “But let me make sure that I answer your specific question. I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report before the IG report had been leaked through the press.

“I” is not the same as “anybody in the White House”

“the IG report” is not the same as “the agency’s actions”

The parsing is rather obvious. He and others in the White House could have known all about what the agency was doing and his answer could still have been technically true.

They are all in modified limited hangout mode, until they have to retreat to another hangout. Keep pushing.

Missy on May 23, 2013 at 2:26 PM

The issue has nothing to do with what was known by the buss-fodder this year. The issue is that the head of the IRS union met with the POTUS 1 day before targeting began. The issue is that Shulmann met 108 time with the White House.

This is like standing at third base to take a swing. Put on the big boy pants Ed and Allah. I know you need revenue from the Chile’s commercials, but at some point you have to grow up.

oldroy on May 23, 2013 at 2:49 PM

verb is on the loose, again.

Schadenfreude on May 23, 2013 at 3:03 PM

They don’t look to the future. I want the trampling of liberties by the IRS to be punished, with the American people telling any future Administration we won’t sit for it from them, either — Party affiliation aside. I wouldn’t sit for a Conservative Administration doing this sort of thing to liberal or any other groups, either. And if I won’t tolerate it being done to my political opponents, I’m sure as heck not going to allow it to be done to my side, either.

The trolls here don’t get that. That’s why we call them trolls.

Liam on May 23, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Well said.

I don’t know if the hearings have covered this, since all I have seen are summaries and clips, but did the IRS department ever make a uniform questionnaire for all applicants for the different types of 501(c) applications that would actually distinguish political and non-political activity, or are all the decisions done according to “rule of thumb” or “just how I felt when it crossed my desk today,” even before (or running parallel to) the partisan harassment?

It’s not like 501(c) reviews are a totally new thing starting in 2010 (even if Citizens United did change some of the rules).

AesopFan on May 23, 2013 at 3:33 PM

I can’t speak to the legality, but it sure looks trashy. If I were president, those two heads would have rolled by now.

Liam on May 23, 2013 at 1:18 PM

I actually don’t know for sure, but the Chief of Staff can’t have the right to keep the President from knowing things– it’s his job to make sure the President does know.

petunia on May 23, 2013 at 3:33 PM

http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/294908_387452721371512_187309781_n.jpg

davidk on May 23, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Ha.
Ok, but who has the most fake blondes?

verbaluce on May 23, 2013 at 3:39 PM

verbaluce on May 23, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Start out mean, then make ‘em keen?

You’re a very low-grade troll. Do better.

MadisonConservative on May 23, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Oh lighten’ up.
Don’t be MADisonConservative?

verbaluce on May 23, 2013 at 3:42 PM

Maybe she will give the “Blonde Jokes” credence.

they lie on May 23, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3