Did the IRS Really Lose Lois Lerner’s Emails? Let a Special Prosecutor Find Them.

Obama needs to address this “phony scandal” and the public trust with real transparency.

Lois Lerner, former director of the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), listens during a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Capitol Hill March 5, 2014 in Washington, DC. Chairman Darrell Issa(R-CA) questioned witness Lerner, to see if the Internal Revenue Service has been targeting US citizens based on their political beliefs. Lerner invoked her Fifth Amendment right not to testify.
National Journal
Ron Fournier
June 13, 2014, 7:58 p.m.

A sloppy mis­take, the gov­ern­ment calls it, but you couldn’t blame a per­son for sus­pect­ing a cov­er-up — the loss of an un­told num­ber of emails to and from the cent­ral fig­ure in the IRS tea-party con­tro­versy. And be­cause the pub­lic’s trust is a fra­gile gift that the White House has frittered away in a series of second-term mis­steps, Pres­id­ent Obama needs to act.

If the IRS can’t find the emails, maybe a spe­cial pro­sec­utor can.

The an­nounce­ment came late Fri­day, a too-cute-by-half cliche of a PR strategy to mit­ig­ate back­lash. “The IRS told Con­gress it can­not loc­ate many of Lois Lern­er’s emails pri­or to 2011 be­cause her com­puter crashed dur­ing the sum­mer of that year,” the As­so­ci­ated Press re­por­ted.

Lern­er headed the IRS di­vi­sion that pro­cessed ap­plic­a­tions for tax-ex­empt status. The IRS ac­know­ledged last year that agents had im­prop­erly scru­tin­ized ap­plic­a­tions for tax-ex­empt status by tea-party and oth­er con­ser­vat­ive groups.

At is­sue is wheth­er the IRS probes were polit­ic­ally mo­tiv­ated and dir­ec­ted by the White House. Con­gres­sion­al in­vest­ig­at­ors were hop­ing for an­swers in Lern­er’s emails.

The IRS also screened lib­er­al groups, which Demo­crats claim as proof that there was no ab­use of power. That’s wish­ful think­ing. The fact that lib­er­al groups were screened is mit­ig­at­ing, not dis­pos­it­ive.

Re­pub­lic­ans law­makers are prone not to trust any ex­plan­a­tion from the White House. Their most con­ser­vat­ive voters as­sumed from the start that the White House was tar­get­ing right-lean­ing groups for in­tim­id­a­tion.

“The fact that I am just learn­ing about this, over a year in­to the in­vest­ig­a­tion, is com­pletely un­ac­cept­able and now calls in­to ques­tion the cred­ib­il­ity of the IRS’s re­sponse to con­gres­sion­al in­quir­ies,” said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., chair­man of the House Ways and Means Com­mit­tee. “There needs to be an im­me­di­ate in­vest­ig­a­tion and forensic audit by De­part­ment of Justice as well as the in­spect­or gen­er­al.”

Obama has adam­antly re­jec­ted the sug­ges­tion that the IRS was used for polit­ic­al pur­poses. “That’s not what happened,” he told Fox News in Feb­ru­ary. Rather, he said, IRS of­fi­cials were con­fused about how to im­ple­ment the law gov­ern­ing those kinds of tax-ex­empt groups. “Not even a smidgen of cor­rup­tion” oc­curred, he said. His al­lies dubbed it a “phony scan­dal.”

Six weeks after the scan­dal broke, I chas­tised House Re­pub­lic­ans for cherry-pick­ing evid­ence and jump­ing to con­clu­sions. In the same column, I urged the pres­id­ent to be trans­par­ent: pave way for in­vest­ig­at­ors to ques­tion wit­nesses un­der oath and sub­poena the White House and his own reelec­tion cam­paign for re­lated emails and oth­er doc­u­ments.

If forced to guess, I would say that the IRS and its White House mas­ters are guilty of gross in­com­pet­ence, but not cor­rup­tion. I based that only on my per­son­al know­ledge of — and re­spect for — Obama and his team. But I shouldn’t have to guess. More im­port­antly, most Amer­ic­ans don’t have a pro­fes­sion­al re­la­tion­ship with Obama and his team. Many don’t re­spect or trust gov­ern­ment. They de­serve what Obama prom­ised nearly six weeks ago — ac­count­ab­il­ity. They need a thor­ough in­vest­ig­a­tion con­duc­ted by some­body oth­er than dem­agogic Re­pub­lic­ans and White House al­lies.

Some­body like “¦ a spe­cial pro­sec­utor. Those words are hard for me to type two dec­ades after an in­no­cent land deal I covered in Arkan­sas turned in­to the run­away White­wa­ter in­vest­ig­a­tion.

Noth­ing has changed. The White House is stone­walling the IRS in­vest­ig­a­tion. The most be­nign ex­plan­a­tion is that Obama’s team is polit­ic­ally ex­pedi­ent and ar­rog­ant, which makes them des­per­ate to change the sub­ject and con­vinced of their in­sti­tu­tion­al in­no­cence. That’s bad enough. But without a fiercely in­de­pend­ent in­vest­ig­a­tion, we shouldn’t as­sume the ex­plan­a­tion is be­nign.

What We're Following See More »
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
3 days ago

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
3 days ago

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
3 days ago

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
3 days ago

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Carly Fiorina Will Not Be Allowed to Debate on Saturday
2 days ago

ABC News has announced the criteria for Saturday’s Republican debate, and that means Carly Fiorina won’t be a part of it. The network is demanding candidates have “a top-three finish in Iowa, a top-six standing in an average of recent New Hampshire polls or a top-six placement in national polls in order for candidates to qualify.” And there will be no “happy hour” undercard debate this time. “So that means no Fiorina vs. Jim Gilmore showdown earlier in the evening for the most ardent of campaign 2016 junkies.