Did Hillary Clinton sell out President Obama on the IRS scandal? I assumed so when BuzzFeed Politics posted this tweet:
Obama, as you might remember, dismissed the undisputed fact that the IRS targeted political groups. He called it a “phony scandal” and declared that “not even a smidgen of corruption” exists inside the IRS — this without an independent investigation or the least bit of transparency from his administration.
Stretching the bounds of credulity, the IRS announced Friday that countless emails to and from Lois Lerner were “lost.” As a former head of the IRS division that did the screening, Lerner is a key to determining whether the activity was directed by Obama’s political team and whether conservatives were overwhelmingly targeted.
Conservatives jump to their conclusions: The IRS and White House are guilty. Liberals leap to theirs: The IRS and Team Obama are innocent. But the fact is, we don’t have all the facts. We don’t know whether there has been a criminal abuse of power, and we can’t trust either party to find an honest answer, which is why on Friday I renewed my call for an independent prosecutor.
All this to explain why the BuzzFeed tweet caught my eye. Unable to watch the Fox News interview live, I monitored reports on Twitter and seized on the possibility that Clinton was distancing herself from Obama.
My colleague Alex Seitz-Wald wisely told me to take a breath.
Later, I carefully watched a recording of the interview. After nearly 30 years of covering Bill and Hillary Clinton, I should have known her words needed parsing.
“I think that anytime that the IRS is involved, for many people, it’s a real scandal.” This was the first thing Clinton said after Greta Van Susteren asked whether she thought it was a phony scandal. The line was rehearsed. It’s the basis of the BuzzFeed tweet.
The key to the sentence is “for many people.” Clinton did not say whether she’s one of those people. With a soft chuckle, she delivered a line that simultaneously empathized with Obama’s critics while giving herself a safe distance from them. I never said I think the scandal is real.
It was vintage Clinton. You could almost see her husband standing in the studio’s shadows, biting his lower lip and nodding.
“And I think, though, there are some challenges that rightly need to be made to what is being said, and I assume the inquiry will continue.” The first part of the sentence is mush, but I took it to be a signal to the White House and its liberal allies that GOP allegations must be challenged. The second half is a sop to people who want the investigation to continue.
Note that Clinton did not say who should conduct the inquiry, nor did she demand transparency from the White House and the IRS. Again, she played both sides of the fence.
“I don’t have the details, but I think what President Obama means there is [that] there really wasn’t a lot of evidence that this was deliberate, but that’s why the investigation needs to continue.” This is how she defended Obama’s indefensible and premature claim that the scandal is phony.
“Well, maybe the right thing to say is, ‘Let’s investigate it but let’s do it in as nonpartisan, as fair-minded — fair and balanced as we can because we want to know what the facts are.’ ” A relentless Van Susteren had told Clinton it’s “irrational not to be extremely suspicious” after the loss of the emails. She pressed Clinton again about the phony-scandal claim. Clinton took a stab at a less-partisan White House talking point (“Let’s investigate “¦”) while taking a jab at the GOP (“but let’s do it” in a nonpartisan way).
For good measure, Clinton pandered, echoing Fox’s “fair-and-balanced” motto with a knowing smile.
“Not just the president but anybody who says that is basically saying the circus around these investigations “¦ are really kind of confusing what is happening, and it’s important to get back to very professional inquiries that can’t be accused of politicizing because somebody may be worried about the answer they get or don’t get, and let’s try to find out what the facts are.” After Van Susteren accused Obama of trying to throw the public “off the scent,” Clinton recast the phony-scandal talking point. Notice the subtle digs at the GOP. “Circus,” “confusing,” and “politicizing” are all dog whistles to the Left.
Clinton is running for president in 2016 unless she decides to stop. She hopes to make sales on her book tour, but the main purpose of the rugged public schedule, according to advisers, is to help her decide whether to take the next step and formally announce. It’s been a bumpy rollout, but Clinton deserves credit for back-to-back interviews Tuesday on CNN and Fox News. Few political figures could (or would) expose themselves to so many questions in such little time under that kind of pressure.
But on the question of whether she distanced herself from Obama on the IRS scandal — whether she would hold the IRS accountable and demand transparency from government like she did as a Watergate prosecutor — the answer is, unfortunately, no.
After all these years, Clinton is still reacting to a controversy by deflecting it. The public is left with a mound of words to parse.
What We're Following See More »
Foreign Policy takes a look at the future of mining the estimated "100,000 near-Earth objects—including asteroids and comets—in the neighborhood of our planet. Some of these NEOs, as they’re called, are small. Others are substantial and potentially packed full of water and various important minerals, such as nickel, cobalt, and iron. One day, advocates believe, those objects will be tapped by variations on the equipment used in the coal mines of Kentucky or in the diamond mines of Africa. And for immense gain: According to industry experts, the contents of a single asteroid could be worth trillions of dollars." But the technology to get us there is only the first step. Experts say "a multinational body might emerge" to manage rights to NEOs, as well as a body of law, including an international court.
Not to be outdone by Jeffrey Goldberg's recent piece in The Atlantic about President Obama's foreign policy, the New York Times Magazine checks in with a longread on the president's economic legacy. In it, Obama is cognizant that the economic reality--73 straight months of growth--isn't matched by public perceptions. Some of that, he says, is due to a constant drumbeat from the right that "that denies any progress." But he also accepts some blame himself. “I mean, the truth of the matter is that if we had been able to more effectively communicate all the steps we had taken to the swing voter,” he said, “then we might have maintained a majority in the House or the Senate.”
Ronald Reagan's children and political allies took to the media and Twitter this week to chide funnyman Will Ferrell for his plans to play a dementia-addled Reagan in his second term in a new comedy entitled Reagan. In an open letter, Reagan's daughter Patti Davis tells Ferrell, who's also a producer on the movie, “Perhaps for your comedy you would like to visit some dementia facilities. I have—I didn’t find anything comedic there, and my hope would be that if you’re a decent human being, you wouldn’t either.” Michael Reagan, the president's son, tweeted, "What an Outrag....Alzheimers is not joke...It kills..You should be ashamed all of you." And former Rep. Joe Walsh called it an example of "Hollywood taking a shot at conservatives again."
In a sign that she’s ready to put a longer-than-expected primary battle behind her, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D) is no longer going on the air in upcoming primary states. “Team Clinton hasn’t spent a single cent in … California, Indiana, Kentucky, Oregon and West Virginia, while” Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) “campaign has spent a little more than $1 million in those same states.” Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sanders’ "lone backer in the Senate, said the candidate should end his presidential campaign if he’s losing to Hillary Clinton after the primary season concludes in June, breaking sharply with the candidate who is vowing to take his insurgent bid to the party convention in Philadelphia.”
The team behind the bestselling "Clinton Cash"—author Peter Schweizer and Breitbart's Stephen Bannon—is turning the book into a movie that will have its U.S. premiere just before the Democratic National Convention this summer. The film will get its global debut "next month in Cannes, France, during the Cannes Film Festival. (The movie is not a part of the festival, but will be shown at a screening arranged for distributors)." Bloomberg has a trailer up, pointing out that it's "less Ken Burns than Jerry Bruckheimer, featuring blood-drenched money, radical madrassas, and ominous footage of the Clintons."