Getting Trump

For John, BLUF:  Our politics appears to be becoming more and more partisan.  Is there a way we could pause?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Special prosecutor won’t be Mueller sequel

Here is the sub-headline:

From The [Lowell] Sun, by Noah Feldman, 26 November 2022.

Here is the lede plus three:

To no one’s surprise, Attorney General Merrick Garland has appointed a special prosecutor, Jack Smith, to investigate former President Donald Trump. You might think that you’ve seen this movie before. But there’s little reason to think this will be a repeat of the Robert Mueller investigation that declined to bring charges against Trump. Charges are more likely this time around — though that doesn’t guarantee they will stick.

Remember how worried we were about whether special counsel Mueller would be fired? And remember how then-Attorney General William Barr subverted Mueller’s report by misrepresenting its contents in advance of its release?

Garland is no Barr. He will respect the special counsel’s independence. It would be almost impossible for him to insist on prosecution if Smith judged it inappropriate. And it would be astonishing if he blocked charges that Smith wanted to bring. Either method of contravening the special prosecutor would politicize the prosecution decision. Garland’s whole emphasis at the Department of Justice has been to restore the department to its traditional (and desirable) status as nonpartisan.

Smith is by all accounts a straight shooter, free of partisan bias. He won’t be afraid to charge Trump with federal crimes if the evidence supports it. That’s bad news for Trump. Especially because, with respect to the classified documents Trump took from the White House to Mar-a-Lago, it already seems clear there is enough evidence for criminal charges.

The article is kind of disrespectful of former US Attorney General William Barr, while puffing up Attorney General Merrick Garland.

More interesting to me is how the author sees Special Council Jack Smith as "a straight shooter, free of partisaan bias."  Not everyone sees it that way.  Take Ms Mia Cathell, of Town Hall.  Her 25 November 2022 (11:00 AM) article, "There's Something Fishy About the Special Counsel Investigating Trump" brings up how Mr Smith went after Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, esentially knocking him out of the 2016 GOP Presidential Primary Race.  The fact that the US Supreme Court reversed the conviction 9 to 0 doesn't erase the blot at the time, which disrupted our political process.  I would mark him down for this.

Then, there is Mr Smith's close association with the former IRS Official, Ms Lois Lerner.  Enough said.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Trump Taxes Disclosed

For John, BLUF:  I guess, if the data of the President is not secure, my data is not secure.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

TRUMP'S TAXES SHOW CHRONIC LOSSES AND YEARS OF TAX AVOIDANCE

Here is the sub-headline:

Records Obtained by The Times After Years of Secrecy

Source is The New York Times, 28 September 2020.

It is all behind a paywall.  How many paywalls can a middle class person afford?  I have to prioritize, Lowell, Boston, WSJ.  The Old Gray Lady is not one of them.  That said, one of my Brothers sends me select article, to needle me.

How did their Lordships at The Times obtain this data?  Are public officials vulnerable to having their private data released by Civil Servants who lack integrity?  Is this the flip side of the actions of Ms Lois Lerner?

The good news out of this is that apparently there is no evidence of President Trump being linked to Russians in nefarious ways.

I guess there are no concerns about how former Vice President Biden made his millions on the salary of an elected official.  Speaking fees?

Regards  —  Cliff

Sally Yates Fails the Ethics Test

For John, BLUF:  Acting Attorney General Sally Yates failed the ethics test, but so are a bunch of others, including presumable dedicated neutral Civil Servants.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Whistleblowers and the Real Deep State

Here is the sub-headline:

Civil servants too often forget they work for the people and seek to impose their own policy agendas.

From The Wall Street Journal, by Reporter Kimberley A. Strassel, 11 October 2019.

Probably behind a paywall.

Here is the lede plus four:

House Democrats are plowing ahead with an impeachment effort inspired by accusations from an anonymous “whistleblower.”  The lawmakers may allow the witness to testify anonymously, sources who themselves remained anonymous told the Washington Post this week.  It’s as if the whole effort is designed to confirm President Trump’s complaint that the “deep state” is determined to sabotage his presidency.

By “deep state,” Mr. Trump seems to mean any current or former federal employee who works to undermine him.  I find that definition too broad, and it misses an important distinction.  Officials like James Comey and John Brennan, respectively former directors of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency, were appointed by politicians and are subject to some public scrutiny and political accountability.

The “deep state”—if we are to use the term—is better defined as consisting of career civil servants, who have growing power in the administrative state but work in the shadows.  As government grows, so do the challenges of supervising a bureaucracy swelling in both size and power.  Emboldened by employment rules that make it all but impossible to fire career employees, this internal civil “resistance” has proved willing to take ever more outrageous actions against the president and his policies, using the tools of both traditional and social media.

Government-employed resisters received a call to action within weeks of the new administration.  Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates became acting attorney general on Mr. Trump’s inauguration and Loretta Lynch’s resignation.  A week later, the president signed an executive order restricting travel from seven Middle Eastern and African countries.  Ms. Yates instructed Justice Department lawyers not to defend the order in court on the grounds that she was not convinced it was “consistent” with the department’s “responsibilities” or even “lawful.”  She decreed:  “For as long as I am Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order.”

Mr. Trump fired her that day, but he shouldn’t have had to.  Her obligation was to defend the executive order, or to resign if she felt she couldn’t.  Nobody elected Sally Yates.

Every subordinate owes his or her boss a "But, sir".  However, after that "But, sir" one is obligated to execute or resign.  To stick around and sabotage some project of the boss is not just unethical, it is destructive of the idea of our form of Government.  It returns us to 1880, to the time before the Pendelton Act and a professional Civil Service, in the wake of the assassination of President James A Garfield.

But, the neutrality of the Civil Service was questioned before the Administration of President Trump.  There was the IRS and Ms Lois Lerner, working against the Tea Parties, and other groups, including those oriented toward Democratic Party themes, by denying tax except status in an effort to thwart those political factions.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Some Justice, At Last

For John, BLUF:  This has been a long time coming, and it has come begrudgingly.  Bureaucracy doesn't like to admit error.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Conservative Groups Targeted in Lois Lerner’s IRS Scandal Receive Settlement Checks

From The Daily Signal, by Reporter M.D. Kittle, 11 January 2019.

Here is the lede plus one:

Dozens of conservative organizations are receiving late Christmas presents years after the IRS handed them a lump of coal.

The federal government in recent days has been issuing settlement checks to 100 right-of-center groups wrongfully targeted for their political beliefs under the Obama administration’s Internal Revenue Service, according to an attorney for the firm that represented plaintiffs in NorCal v. United States.

From Law Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds:

THAT’S NICE, BUT IT WOULD BE NICER IF SOME PEOPLE HAD BEEN FIRED AND CRIMINALLY CHARGED

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

IRS as Enforcer

For John, BLUF:  The IRS can be a weapon, wielded by politicians or bureaucrats, to keep the hoi polloi in line.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

John McCain Staffer Told Lois Lerner To Audit Non-Exempts Till They Collapsed

Note:  It was a Staffer, and not the Senator.

From The Lid Blog, by Mr Jeff Dunetz, 21 Jun 2018.

Here are the first two paragraphs:

Judicial Watch released some documents revealing that a John McCain staffer urged Lois Lerner to audit non-exempt organizations until they financially collapsed. What he didn’t know was Lerner was already attacking the 501(C)(3), groups.  By April 30th, 2013, Sen. John McCain’s staff director Henry Kerner, had moved on to be the chief counsel on the McCain-chaired Senate Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee.

On that last day of April he urged a group of senior IRS officials, including the infamous director of exempt organizations Lois Lerner that if she thinks the groups were being political to “audit so many that it becomes financially ruinous.”

One assumes that the [unelected] staffer was working at the direction of his principal, and not free lancing.

And, one assumes that the IRS would only go against those that were violating the rules.

And, one assumes that this was not that Lois Lerner.

UPDATE:  Senator McCain's Office Pushes Back, strongly.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Lessons to be Learned

For John, BLUF:  When you think the other party is pure evil you need to check your assumptions, because you are probably wrong.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Governmental accountability board? More like Wisconsin's Secret Police

The sub-headline:

It was a partisan witch hunt masquerading as an inquiry into campaign irregularities. And it might presage the outcome of the Mueller investigation.

An OpEd from USA Today, by Law Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds, 11 December 2017.

Here is the lede plus one:

The “Cheesehead Stasi.”  That’s what Twitter humorist IowaHawk called a long-running and politicized investigation organized by Democratic politicians in Wisconsin, targeting supporters of Republican Gov. Scott Walker.  The mechanism for this investigation was an allegedly nonpolitical, but in fact entirely partisan, “Government Accountability Board.”

In the course of its secretive “John Doe” investigation, the GAB hoovered up millions of personal emails from Republican donors and supporters, and even raided people’s homes, while forbidding them to talk about it:

The line "raided people’s homes, while forbidding them to talk about it" sounds very UnAmerican.  But it does sound like Eastern European Secret Police, like the Stasi.

This is like IRS Official Lois Lerner, but with the power to take records from your home.

This is a warning to Special Counsel Robert Mueller to keep it clean and above board.  Back to Wisconsin, I think, at this point the Cheeseheads need to vote to keep Stasi like Democrats out of office for the next fifty years.

By the way, the OpEd is a pretty quick read and well worth it.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Unseal The Records

For John, BLUF:  We need to hold Government Officials, especially ones drawing a pension, to a higher standard.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The IRS Scandal, Day 1657: Lois Lerner Fears Retaliation If Her Tea Party Targeting Deposition Is Made Public

This from The Tax Prof Blog, and Dean Paul L Caron, 21 November 2017.

Here is the lede plus two:

In his courtroom apologia in the film “A Few Good Men,” Jack Nicholson’s Col. Nathan Jessup made the words famous.  Now, in her bid to keep her testimony in a recently settled tea-party lawsuit against the IRS secret, Lois Lerner has picked up the Jessup argument:  “You can’t handle the truth!”

They used different words but the meaning is the same. Here’s how lawyers for Ms. Lerner and her former IRS deputy, Holly Paz, put it in a filing aimed at persuading a judge to keep their testimony from becoming public:  “Public dissemination of their deposition testimony would expose them and their families to harassment and a credible risk of violence and physical harm.”  They’re not just thinking of themselves, they add.  Young children, family members, might be hurt too.

That’s quite an argument. So enraged would the American public become upon learning what Ms. Lerner and Ms. Paz said that they and those around them would be in physical peril.  Which probably makes most people wonder what the heck must the two have said that would get everyone so agitated? ...

Yes, this is outrageous.  Government officials, acting under the color of their office, do bad things, and then get to hide the details from The People.♠  It isn't, aside from President Obama and a few around him,♥  that we don't know what happened.  It is just that the seamy details need to be kept quiet, perhaps so people won't look for other such actions and draw conclusions.

Now I do very much want to know what terrible things Ms. Lerner and Ms. Paz did that they fear the People will pick up their pitchforks and visit their homes.

Then there is this aspect.

[W]hat a crippling precedent it would be if government officials from powerful agencies such as the IRS were permitted to keep their abuses secret on grounds they fear that the people whom they are supposed to serve might be upset if they found out.

And, finally, there is the fact that from time to time records sealed for a good reason (private divorce) are improperly unsealed.  Just ask Mr Jack Ryan.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  That would be "the little people", folks like you and me.
♥  The InstaPundit commented:  "NONSENSE, PRESIDENT OBAMA ASSURED ME THERE WAS NOT EVEN A SMIDGEN OF WRONGDOING".

DOJ Settles with Tea Parties re IRS

For John, BLUF:  Justicee is sometimes slow, but it does attain.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The IRS Scandal, Day 1632:  Department Of Justice Settles Tea Party Targeting Cases For Millions And An Apology

This is from the Tax Prof Blog, by the Tax Prof himself, Paul Caron, 27 October 2017.

Here is the lede plus two:

The Trump administration on Thursday said it has agreed to pay between $1 million and $10 million to settle lawsuits against the Internal Revenue Service for targeting tea-party groups in the Obama era, saying in court documents that the IRS “admits that its treatment...was wrong.”

The Justice Department entered into proposed settlements with groups that alleged in 2013 they had been subject to discriminatory treatment in applying for tax-exempt status.  The move largely puts an end to a saga that had engulfed the IRS for years.

In a settlement filed in federal court in Washington, which still must be approved by a judge, the Justice Department said the IRS “expresses its sincere apology” and was “fully committed” to not subjecting groups for additional review “solely on the name or policy positions of such entity.”

The only thing missing is Ms Lois Lerner issuing a public apology or paying a fine of $100,000 for her part in this.♠

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Or at least disbarment.

After the IRS For Political Actions

For John, BLUF:  It seems the IRS is just not able to outrun their past actions.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The IRS Scandal, Day 1597: New Details Of Targeting Of Conservative Groups Emerge In Tea Party Lawsuits

From the TaxProf Blog and Tax Prof Paul Caron, on Friday, 22 September 2017, we have a link to a an item in the Cincinnati Enquirer, New Details Emerge in Tea Party Suit Against IRS Here is the lede plus four:

The IRS used the political views of conservative "tea party" groups trying to get nonprofit status as a reason for extra scrutiny and continued delaying applications until 2013 — long after they said they'd stopped — new federal court filings allege.

The new accusations counter previous IRS claims that agents did not consider political beliefs when slowing down tax-exempt applications from right-leaning groups in the months leading up to the 2012 presidential election.

The IRS had instead argued that it was merely monitoring whether the groups were conducting more political activity than was allowed.

The filings by conservative groups suing the IRS also state the agency continued the practice after IRS officials said it had stopped in 2011. …

"By trying to make this about whether this was done to help Obama win is setting the goalpost artificially too high," Eddie Greim, a lawyer representing conservative groups in the class-action suit, said in an interview with The Enquirer.  "All we have to prove is whether they had the intent and if they indeed treated a set of groups differently based on their ideology."

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Hurricane Lerner Bypassed

For John, BLUF:  And she seems to have no regret, no remorse.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Trump's Justice Department WON'T charge IRS 'targeting' scandal villain Lois Lerner with a crime as top Republican calls it 'a terrible decision'

Shame, I say.  Shame.

From The Daily Mail (UK), based on an 8 September 2017 Associated Press story.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

IRS Still Stiff Arming Justice and Conservative Political Action Committees

For John, BLUF:  Congress could impeach IRS Commissioner John Koskinen.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The IRS Scandal, Day 1563: Judge Orders IRS To Disclose Names Of Employees Who Targeted Conservative Groups And To Prove That It Has Stopped The Practice

Tax Law Prof Paul L Caron is back with a new post at his Blog.  Dateline is 19 Aug 2017.

A federal judge on Thursday ordered the IRS to name the specific employees the agency blames for targeting tea party groups for intrusive scrutiny and said the government must prove it has ceased the targeting.

Judge Reggie B. Walton also said the IRS must explain the reasons for the delays for 38 groups that are part of a lawsuit in the District of Columbia, where they are still looking for a full accounting of their treatment.

Incidentally, the Judge is this case is Judge Reggie B. Walton, formerly Presiding Judge of the FISA Court.  It is said that one day in 2005, driving with his family to the airport, he saw an assailant beating a cab driver and stopped and subdued the assailant until the police arrive.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

To Impeach or Not to Impeach

For John, BLUF:  I say impeach, so there is some respect for Congress.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Today was Day 1143 in the IRS Tax Scandal, and the Tax Prof Blog talks about Impeachment.

Internal Revenue Service Commissioner John Koskinen probably was the happiest person in Washington, D.C., today.  On a day when the House Judiciary Committee's second hearing on his possible impeachment might otherwise have garnered much attention, the Capitol Hill session was upstaged by two other events. ...

[W]hat did all normal, nontax nerds who took a pass miss on the Koskinen front?  Not much.

Same old, same old:  The wagons were circled along party lines, with Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte spelling out the "serious allegations of misconduct" against Koskinen in his opening statement. ...

Giving false testimony to Congress about how the Internal Revenue Service [mis]handled intra-agency emails is an impeachable offense, but House [Republican] action sans Senate support would be a mistake.  That was the assessment of Andrew McCarthy, a former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, at part 2 of the House Judiciary Committee's hearing to consider the impeachment of IRS Commissioner John Koskinen. ...

Michael Gerhardt, however, told Judiciary members that, "In my opinion, I think gross negligence doesn't qualify" as one of the constitutional requirements -- treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors -- for impeachment.  Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the University of North Carolina Law School, said in his view, impeachable conduct would have to involve "bad intent."

The conflicting opinions of legal experts, which also included George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley and Todd Garvey, legislative attorney with the Library of Congress, mirrored the disputes among the committee members themselves. ...

So far, Chaffetz has been able to get his GOP colleagues on Government Reform to agree to censure Koskinen.  But his chances of impeachment the IRS chief are smaller.  Neither House nor Senate Republican leaders have expressed support for the effort.

So, you can be a Government Official, an appointed official, confirmed by Congress even, and you can't be impeached for lying to Congress?  Interesting.  I wonder how that would work in a Trump Administration, especially if the Democrats held both houses of Congress?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Suppressing Free Speech, Indirectly

For John, BLUF:  Everything is politics and it never ends.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From The Daily Caller and Reporter Kathryn Watson, we have "California AG Threatens Non-Profit Donors’ First Amendment Rights".

California Attorney General Kamala Harris is being deluged with requests from non-profit officials to withdraw her “unconstitutional” demand for public disclosure of donor names because it creates a “back door” around the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United.

Harris’ critics claim her demand violates the First Amendment and privacy laws, compromises donor privacy and security, and makes it easier for government officials and agencies to pressure dissenting groups challenging particular policies and programs.

Non-profit donor disclosure discourages contributions and undermines the Citizens United ruling that upheld political contributions by corporations and unions as exercises of First Amendment speech that government agencies like the Federal Election Commission cannot limit.

This is an indirect approach to defeating the US Supreme Court Decision in Citizens United.  I applaud the California Attorney General for her ingenuity,  I am disappointed that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has sided with Ms Harris.

This Government intrusion into the lives of private citizens, this "criminalization of opinion" must be resisted.  There must be no more Lois Lerners.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

A Snow Storm of EMails

For John, BLUF:  Coverups, all the way down.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From the Tax Prof Blog we have a link to an Editorial in The Washington Examiner.  It is, after all, Day 989 if the IRS Scandal.

"The dog keeps eating IRS hard drives"

In Oscar Wilde's comedy, "The Importance of Being Earnest," Lady Bracknell is indignant to hear that Jack Worthing is an orphan. "To lose one parent, Mr. Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness."

If only one could enjoy a similar belly laugh over President Obama's IRS repeatedly losing hard drives loaded with data related to scandals at the agency. To lose one might be regarded as suspicious happenstance; to lose two looks like conspiracy.

And it isn't just the IRS.  It appears that DOS wants an added month from the courts for the next dump of EMails from Ms Hillary Clinton.  They are blaming the snow storm.

This is from The [Manchester] Guardian, "Hillary Clinton emails: State Department seeks extension for release".

The US State Department asked a judge on Friday for a one-month extension to finish publicly releasing thousands of emails sent by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state, in part because a winter storm closed government offices.

The department said in a federal court filing it needed until 29 February after realizing this week that it had “overlooked” emails amounting to 7,254 printed pages that it should have already shared with other agencies for them to review for sensitive information.

It said expected heavy snow in Washington DC had interrupted delivery of these emails to other agencies. Many federal offices closed early on Friday afternoon.

They couldn't have used EMail to solve this?  I know DoD is clamping down on the use of EMail (see below), but still, …

As one of my friends noted in an EMail this morning:

Please don't tell me that State is sending over 7,000 pages over to the various agencies to be declass vice scanning and sending over in PDF, as 3 or so gigabytes, or searchable PDF?  Crazy

Well, yes, there is the fact that DoD is putting limits on mail folders.  From The Army Times

“Since February 2015, the number of Defense Enterprise Email mailboxes [with] more than four gigabytes had been increasing at a rate of approximately 4,000 accounts per month,” said John Howell, Army product director for enterprise content collaboration and messaging.

In a time of limited budgets the servers needed for this EMail are too costly and unsustainable.

Yes, the Washington Times Editors have it—"careless" or "conspiracy".

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

"Lois Lerner was Incompetent"—Attorney General

For John, BLUF:  High crimes and misdemeanors?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Well, that isn't EXACTLY how she said it, but that is the conclusion that would be drawn by the man on the Clapham Bus.  To quote from our Attorney General, Ms Lois Lerner:

Our review found that the management of the process by which tax-exempt applications were handled at the IRS was characterized by mismanagement and inefficiency in numerous circumstances.

The terms "mismanagement" and "inefficiency" are bureaucratize for "incompetent".

The quote from Ms Lynch came from a National Review article by Mr Joel Gehrke, "Lynch: Lois Lerner Protected by DOJ’s ‘Prosecutorial Discretion’"

This comment came during a Congressional Hearing that included Representative Darrell Issa questioning of the Attorney General.  Representative Issa read to Ms Lynch the applicable federal statute regarding congressional contempt citations (one was issued to Lois Lerner):

it “shall be [the U.S. attorney’s duty] to bring the matter before the grand jury”

The Attorney General stuck to her guns:

In the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, that decision was made.

Representative Issa went on:

“You have no respect for laws passed if you don’t like them,” Issa replied. “You think you have discretion when something says ‘shall,’ is what you’re testifying to, today.”

I have always taken a "shall statement" to be a mandate.  What the Administration is doing is wrong and it is also wrong for them to bind Ms Lynch to this breaking of the law.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Lois Lerner, Multi-tasking

For John, BLUF:  Remind me, Monday, to ask George about if Ms Lerner should be debarred here in Massachusetts.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

By Reporter Stephen Dinan, of The Washington Times we have this Monday article—"IRS finds yet another Lois Lerner email account".  Another?  Yes, besides the two already found, there is an account for ‘Toby Miles’, linked to government business.

Lois Lerner had yet another personal email account used to conduct some IRS business, the tax agency confirmed in a new court filing late Monday that further complicates the administration’s efforts to be transparent about Ms. Lerner’s actions during the tea party targeting scandal.

The admission came in an open-records lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest law firm that has sued to get a look at emails Ms. Lerner sent during the targeting.

IRS lawyer Geoffrey J. Klimas told the court that as the agency was putting together a set of documents to turn over to Judicial Watch, it realized Ms. Lerner had used yet another email account, in addition to her official one and another personal one already known to the agency.

It is Day 838 of the IRS Scandal.  That is a long time.  The good news is that the Courts in our system of Government are allowing this to go on and not shutting it down, like we were some sort of dictatorship, without the protection of a separation of powers.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

IRS Scandal, Diving Deeper

For John, BLUF:  If the IRS had just followed the rules and not gotten fancy, this would not have been a problem.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

It now appears the IRS scandal regarding tax exempt status for Tea Party organizations was much more complex than we have been thinking.  It started out as a routine action by an IRS employee following the Internal Revenue Manual.  IRS Employee Mr Jack Koester flagged an application.  Per National Review:

In an e-mail written on February 25, 2010, Jack Koester, a revenue agent, told his boss, John Shafer, that “recent media attention” made the application at hand a “high-profile” case.  In doing so, he was following the Internal Revenue Manual’s directive to agency personal to elevate to senior managers cases that fall into several categories, including those “that are newsworthy, or that have the potential to become newsworthy.”

The article from National Review is "Conservative Group Uncovers New Roots of the IRS Scandal".

For those of you worried, Ms Lois Lerner doesn't get off the hook.  She and her ilk are why a routine action that should have been a blip of a delay became the imbroglio that it has.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Oh No, Mr Bill

For John, BLUF:  Of course we don't really "trust" government, but we continue to pay taxes like we do and that should not be undermined.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The IRS, which seemed to not understand its duties and responsibilities with regard to preserving EMail Messages now finds that its Instant Messages, which it thought were immune from having to be archived, aren't.

An Archives spokeswoman, in a statement to Government Executive, said, “The definition of a federal record includes all machine-readable materials made or received by an agency under federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business.  Agencies that allow instant messaging traffic on their networks must recognize that such content may be a federal record and must be managed accordingly.  NARA has issued an FAQ on Instant Messaging that provides general information about these potential records.”

The hypocrisy of demanding that citizens keep seven years of information for tax purposes while not complying with Federal retention requirements is huge, perhaps as huge as the National Debt.

On the other hand, the real issue is retention of the trust of the American People.  Our tax system works because the majority of our Citizens voluntarily comply with the tax rules, as they understand them, or pay someone to understand them.  In an April 2013 report, CNBC put the underground economy at about 8% of our GDP, or $2 Trillion.  They put lost taxes at about $500 billion in 2012.♠

I think it behooves the Federal Government to take steps, reasonable steps, to help restore and retain the trust of the American People in the IRS.

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  "A billion here, a billion there, it soon adds up to real money"—the late Senator Everett Dirksen.

The MSM Looks, But Does Not See

For John, BLUF:  The NYT view.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The "Public Editor" for The New York Times♠ answers reader comments on The Old Grey Lady and the IRS imbroglio.  Her take:

The Times was somewhat late in beginning to cover the latest development about the lost emails. My office had begun to field several days’ worth of reader protests on the lack of attention when the first story finally went online.  Despite that slow start and the quiet display of the subsequent stories (an analytical piece might have been a good choice for the front page), The Times has given its readers insightful coverage of a situation heavily clouded by partisan politics.

I will give her the "somewhat late".  It is my guess that the powers that be in the paper think this is just a made up scandal and there is nothing to it.  Ms Lois Lerner was just doing her legitimate job and the loss of her EMails and those of six other IRS employees, are just the way an electronic world moves.

What did you expect?  Don't Worry, Be Happy

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  This would be Ms Margaret Sullivan and the position would be a sort of Ombudsman for the readers of America's Newspaper of Record.