Nancy Pelosi famously said that Congress had to pass Obamacare to find out what was in it.  And what's in it is pure awesome, even if Americans haven't been able to comprehend its fully glory just yet:

The way she tells it, the law is already lowering costs -- and is "largely responsible" for lowering the deficit.  Hoo boy.  Obamacare is not lowering healthcare costs; not for families, not for small businesses, and not for the federal government.  And while it's true that this year's projected deficit has been shaved down to merely quadruple the last fully Republican-controlled budget shortfall, Obamacare has nothing to do with it.  In fact, the nonpartisan GAO estimates that the law will add $6.2 trillion to deficits over time.  Don't forget, Harry Reid is complaining that the law is under-funded. (And, by the way, our long-term debt problem remains as acute as ever -- particularly because of our unsustainable entitlement obligations).  Pelosi has also claimed that Obamacare is a big job creator, a statement that even the White House's favorite economists can't swallow, to say nothing of CBO estimates....or assessments from Democrats who voted for the law.  So how's the Obamacare jobs boom going in Missouri?

"This all stems from the Affordable Care Act."

Meanwhile, the investigation into HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' potentially-illegal extortionary "fundraising" for the law is well underway, as the scandal- and incompetence-plagued IRS prepares to take the reins as Obamacare's top enforcement arm next year.  Yes, that's the same IRS that's just been slapped with a class action lawsuit alleging that more than a dozen agency employees are responsible for the theft of 60 million private healthcare records.  But aside from those details, all is well.

Under pressure from lawmakers Wednesday to explain why the Department of Justice secretly monitored the personal and work phones of Associated Press reporters, Attorney General Eric Holder shielded himself from responsibility by claiming, "I don't know."

According to Holder, Deputy Attorney General James Cole signed off on a subpoena allowing for the monitoring of AP reporters and editors after Holder recused himself from the case. The law requires the Attorney General of the United States to sign off on subpoenas related to press monitoring. Holder claimed throughout the hearing that because he recused himself "early on," he knew nothing about the details of DOJ snooping.

Here is a list of a few of Holder's quotes in response to the phone monitoring case:

I recused myself because I thought it would be inappropriate for a fact witness to lead the investigation

I don't know, I was recused from the case.

I do not have a factual basis for that answer because I was recused from the case.

Again Mr. Chairman, I don't know what happened there with the interaction between DOJ and the AP, I was recused from the case.

I simply don't have a factual basis to answer that question.

I am not familiar with the reasons why the subpoena was constructed in the way it was because I was not part of the case.

The head of the RNC called for my resignation even though I was not the one who made that decision.

I know nothing.

Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgran was less than satisfied with Holder's no-knowledge answers.

"I want to know how and why you recused yourself," Lofgren said. "It seems clear to me the actions of the department have in fact impaired the First Amendment....The regulations say that these records should not be contained in a compulsory manner."

Holder said he took no formal steps when he recused himself from the case and did not submit his recusal in writing. He said to the Committee that he appointed people within DOJ to take over the case. Holder claimed Wednesday that because he recused himself, he was completely separate from the case and the people working on it. Holder said the White House probably found out about DOJ monitoring or AP reporters by "reading the newspapers."

On the IRS targeting of conservative groups, Holder said that an apology from IRS officials isn't enough to escape criminal prosecution of laws were broken in the process. Many violations inside the IRS, including using IRS power to intimidate someone or a group for political purposes, amounts to a five-year felony.

"Anybody who has broken the law will be held accountable," Holder said.

 

 

At today’s press briefing, Jay Carney reiterated much of what he said yesterday regarding the multiple scandals plaguing the Obama Administration, once again working to distance the president himself from his wayward colleagues.

Unlike yesterday’s hammering, today’s briefing focused on President Obama’s statement regarding the IRS scandal, issued last night. Reporters wanted to know what, exactly, the president meant when he said he wants those responsible to be held accountable. Does he support firings? Jail time?

Calling the behavior “inappropriate” and “wrong,” Carney could not say anything specific about “accountability.” However, he pointed out that the president would be meeting with Treasury officials this afternoon, including Secretary Jack Lew, to discuss the matter. President Obama feels “very strongly” about the need for accountability and ensuring this never happens again, said Carney, although he couldn’t say what that meant, specifically, as “the president cannot comment on an ongoing investigation.”

“I have no personnel announcements to make,” he said.

Yesterday, Carney refused to comment on what the president thought of the IRS scandal, continually saying “if it happened” (despite IRS officials’ own admissions that the IRS targeted conservative groups), and refusing to comment on the matter until the president reviewed the Inspector General’s report.

Today, although he noted that the president felt “strongly” about the need for the tax code to be applied in a neutral manner, Carney made a point of saying that the president had no reason to doubt the IRS officials who claimed that the targeting was for purposes of efficiency. In other words, Carney seemed to suggest that the president didn’t believe the targeting was politically motivated—and yet, in the same breath, he noted a lack of “neutrality,” indicating that there was political bias present. "The president has no reason to doubt the Inspector General's report," Carney said, in which political bias was not named a factor in the targeting.

Turning to another unfolding indiscretion, reporters in the room seemed awfully curious about the president’s sudden renewed interest in passing media shield legislation, to help protect the press from unwarranted scrutiny over sources. Given the AP hacking discovery, isn’t the timing rather suspect, and perhaps a transparent attempt to save some face?

No, Carney maintained, the president just felt it was “the right time” to have Sen. Chuck Schumer reintroduce his legislation. “The president has a long record of strong support for the First Amendment,” he said, although there was some apparent skepticism among the questioners.

Reporters also wished to know what the president had to say on the hacking scandal, but again, Carney refused to comment owing to the “ongoing criminal investigation,” and the fact that there is a “firewall” between the White House and the Department of Justice during times such as these.

Interestingly, at one point a reporter expressed skepticism that the president was actually learning about all the scandals from news reports, as the White House has consistently maintained whenever something goes awry.

“I would be interested to see reports if it was about the White House interfering with a Department of Justice criminal investigation,” came the response. Indeed, it seems that’s about the only thing that hasn't happened this week.

As I note below, the Inspector General seeks to blame the targeting of conservative groups on "ineffective management" or "ineffective oversight."

To the extent such an explanation is plausible, it becomes increasingly incredible when one learns that other executive agencies likewise discriminated against conservatives.

The Washington Examiner reports that the EPA waived FOIA fees for 92% of administration-friendly groups, while denying 93% of FOIA requests from conservative groups.

Until it was investigated by the House Oversight Committee in 2011, the Department of Homeland Security likewise tried to politicize FOIA requests.

With evidence mounting that no corner of government was immune from politicization in the Obama era, it becomes less and less likely that the IRS debacle resulted from anything as innocuous as poor oversight or mismanagment.

@CPLiebau

Mike Gallagher had an excellent monologue comparing the parable of the scorpion and the frog with the Obama Administration and the media. I threw together an illustration for effect. Enjoy!

Attorney General Eric Holder is set to testify in front of the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday at 1 p.m. eastern time. You can watch the hearing here.

Holder is facing a slew of scandals as he prepares to take questions from lawmakers about Justice Department oversight. First, let’s not forget Holder has been held in contempt of Congress for stonewalling and changing his statements about Operation Fast and Furious. Second, there’s the IRS inappropriately targeting Tea Party groups. Holder said he has opened up a criminal investigation into that case. Third, Holder will be in a room full of reporters while answering questions about the Justice Department secretly monitoring personal and work phone lines of Associated Press reporters. Holder said yesterday he recused himself from the AP leak case “early on” and that the case was handled by Deputy Attorney General James Cole.

Based on the topics at hand, here are a few questions lawmakers should ask Holder under oath:

If the AP leak case was one of the worst in history according to you, why did you as the AG step down from the case?

Yesterday during a press conference, Holder made it a point to stress how serious of a leak was involved in the Associated Press case. He said it was one of the worst leaks he's seen throughout his career yet decided to recuse himself from the case. It seems the chief law enforcement officer, who is Holder, should be working on the most dangerous cases with the highest impact. Not to mention, the law requires the Attorney General to sign off on subpoenas used to monitor media outlets.

Was the Associated Press the only media outlet secretly monitored?How many reporters from what media outlets had their communications secretly monitored?

Just this morning, Holder was asked by NPR how many media outlets have been monitored by the Department of Justice. Holder said he "wasn't sure." The focus up to this point has been on the Associated Press however, it isn't far fetched to ask just how many journalists DOJ decided to secretly monitor.

Why does the Department of Justice actively work with Media Matters to squash scandals and smear journalists?

Today the far-left, George Soros funded Media Matters smear machine came out in support of the Department of Justice in the AP phone tapping case. Why? Because the group is practically on the payroll. The Department of Justice public affairs divisions regularly partners with Media Matters to attack whistleblowers and journalists who dare to expose scandal and wrongdoing within Obama's DOJ. These attacks have included yours truly. As a reminder:

Internal Department of Justice emails obtained by The Daily Caller show Attorney General Eric Holder’s communications staff has collaborated with the left-wing advocacy group Media Matters for America in an attempt to quell news stories about scandals plaguing Holder and America’s top law enforcement agency.

Dozens of pages of emails between DOJ Office of Public Affairs Director Tracy Schmaler and Media Matters staffers show Schmaler, Holder’s top press defender, working with Media Matters to attack reporters covering DOJ scandals.

Emails sent in September and November 2010 show Schmaler working with Media Matters staffer Jeremy Holden on attacking news coverage of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation scandal.

Holden attacked former DOJ Civil Rights Division attorneys J. Christian Adams and Hans von Spakovsky on Sept. 20, 2010 for what he called an attempt “to reignite the phony New Black Panther Party scandal.”

Before Holden posted his article at 7:52 p.m., Schmaler sent him several emails with information helping him attack both former DOJ oficials.

Throughout the email exchanges TheDC obtained through the FOIA request are numerous examples of Gertz and other Media Matters staff sending the full text of Media Matters blog entries attacking the DOJ’s political opponents in the media.

Among others, Gertz sent Schmaler attack pieces he wrote about Townhall Magazine’s Katie Pavlich, who also authored a book on Operation Fast and Furious; Breitbart.com writers Joel Pollak and Ken Klukowski; Fox News Channel’s William LaJeunesse, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Megyn Kelly, Martha MacCallum, Bill Hemmer, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity; Sipsey Street Irregulars blogger Mike Vanderboegh; DirectorBlue blogger Doug Ross; National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy; and this reporter.

Why is it that you never know anything about any major cases going on within your department?

Every time a scandal has surfaced within the Obama administration that directly involves the Department of Justice, Holder claims to have found out about it through "press reports." After that, he pleads ignorant and claims he never signed off on anything. He didn't see Fast and Furious memos addressed directly to him. He didn't sign off on the secret monitoring of AP reporter and editor phone lines, etc.

 

These are just a few of the questions that should be asked and it's far past time for Holder to be held accountable. Not to mention, he is still in contempt.

 

If you don't pay your taxes, you go to jail and now, the majority of likely voters want to see the IRS agents who inappropriately targeted the Tea Party thrown in jail. More from Rasmussen Reports:

Only seven percent (7%) of voters believe no disciplinary action should be taken against the IRS employees involved in the investigations. Twenty-nine percent (29%) feel they should be formally reprimanded. But most (57%) think those involved should be jailed or fired, with 16% who say they should be put in jail and 41% who believe they should be fired.

On the issue of political motivation behind the targeting, a majority believes this was in fact political with 55 percent thinking President Obama had some kind of knowledge about the situation before news reports surfaced. President Obama has claimed he only found out about the targeted through news reports last Friday.

Just 16% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the IRS investigations of these groups were a coincidence, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Fifty-seven percent (57%) think the investigations were politically motivated. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure.

Fifty-five percent (55%) think it is at least somewhat likely that President Obama or his top aides were aware that Tea Party and other conservative groups were targeted by the IRS. Thirty-four percent (34%) consider that unlikely. This includes 36% who believe it is Very Likely the president or his top aides knew of the investigations and 13% who feel it is Not At All Likely. Eleven percent (11%) are undecided.

 

Perhaps by design, the IG report released yesterday cloaks some pretty shocking revelations in mind-numbing bureaucratese.  Interestingly, it seeks to blame a pattern of obvious partisan abuse on "ineffective management" and "ineffective oversight by management."  Although admissions of government incompetence generally have some truth behind them, here, it seems that the IG deliberately chose the most innocuous version of events to put forward as the truth, and demonstrates a willingness to suspend disbelief about some pretty startling admissions of ignorance and targeting.  Notwithstanding the timelines provided in the report, there are significant holes especially regarding who knew what about the targeting, and when.  

There's nothing in there about the targeting of individuals, as I noted last night.

There's nothing in there about who leaked documents to the media (which I wrote about here).

There's nothing in there about how an Obama relection campaign chairman came to possess confidential information he used to attack Mitt Romney.

What the report reveals -- more than anything else -- is that it's a starting point for some sharp inquiry by Congress, raising more questions than it answers.  Some of the issues that might profitably be addressed are as follows:

1. The report's highlight page states that the wrongful IRS activity at issue was a result of "ineffective management." Has there ever been an example of similar activity in the past by low-level employees that "managers" needed to stop? What was it? By whom? How was it stopped? By whom?

2. On page 3, the report notes that "During the 2012 election cycle, some members of Congress raised concerns about selective enforcement."  What were these members told? What investigation had been done internally -- and by whom -- before members like Orrin Hatch were assured that their concerns were baseless? This goes to whether members of Congress were deliberately lied to -- and by whom -- and whether their concerns were even taken seriously in the first place.

3. Also on page 3, the report states that some members of Congress asked the IRS to investigate whether existing 501(c)(4)'s were engaged in improper campaign activity. In other words, some members were urging greater scrutiny of 501(c)(4)'s.  What members were these? Whom did they contact at the IRS? What were they told, and by whom? It would be interesting to know whether any former staffers of these members participated in the wrongdoing.  What's more, if top officials were responsive to these requests, it might suggest where direction for the targeting came from.

4. On page 5, the report states that "The Determinations Unit developed and used inappropriate criteria to identify applications from organizations with the words Tea Party in their names." Who headed the Determinations Unit? Who was part of the Unit? Did any members of the Unit raise contemperaneous objections to the improper criteria? If so, how were those objections addressed and by whom?

[# More #]

5. Footnote 13 on page 5 notes that "until July 2011, the Rulings and Agreements office [NB: located in Washington, DC!] referred to these cases as Tea Party cases. Afterwards, the EO function [Exempt Organizations function] referred to these cases as advocacy cases."  Who headed the Rulings and Agreements office? Was any impropriety detected in the fact that cases reflecting a particular viewpoint (Tea Party) received a designation reflecting that viewpoint? How did the designation come to be changed and by whom? For how long was the Rulings and Agreements office aware that there was a "Tea Party" category of cases? When did the EO become aware of the designation, and was any other action or investigation undertaken when the terminology was changed?

6. Page 5 of the report notes that the IG "identified some organizations' applications with evidence of significant political campaign intervention that were not forwarded to the team of specialists for processing but should have been.  We also identified applications that were forwarded to the team of specialists but did not have indications of significant political campaign intervention.  All applications that were forwarded to the team of specialists experienced substantial delays in processing." What were the applications that were not forwarded for futher review but should have been? (Were these all left-leaning groups?) What were the applications that were incorrectly forwarded and therefore delayed? Were these all right-leaning groups? Goes to issue of whether incompetence and "managerial ineffectiveness" or deliberate malfeasance occurred.

7. On pages 5-6, there is a significant  redaction, followed by the sentence "Soon thereafter, according to the IRS, a Determinations Unit Specialist was asked to search for applications with Tea Party, Patriots or 9/12 in the organization's name as well as other 'political-sounding' names."  Nice use of the passive construction, but who exactly instructed the Determinations Unit Specialist to make this search and why?

8. On page 6, it states "In June of 2010, the Determinations Unit began training its specialists on issues to be aware of, including Tea Party cases." What other issues was the unit to "be aware of"? Who at the Unit initiated the training? Who else knew about or order the training? Did any member of the unit (or anyone else) flag such training as inappropriate, and if so, whom?

9. On page 6, the report reads "EO function officials stated that Determinations Unit specialists intepreted the general criteria in the BOLO ["Be on the lookout"] listing and developed expanded criteria for identifying potential political cases." The attached footnote states that "during interviews" the IG "could not specifically determine who had been involved in creating the criteria." It was later "clarified" that the "expanded criteria were a compilation of" various unit "specialists' responses on how they were identifying Tea Party cases." Who compiled these criteria? Who were the Determinations Unit specialists?  When the EO Director "raised concerns," why was this issue kept secret and under whose directive? Something is amiss here.

10. On page 7, the IG states that "we asked the Acting Commissioner, Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division; the Director, EO; and Determinations Unit personnel if the criteria were influenced by any individual or organization outside the IRS." All said no , "Instead, the Determinations Unit developed and implemented inappropriate criteria in part due to insufficient oversight provided by management." (emphasis added). Obviously, further inquiry is warranted.  If the criteria was developed "in part" due to insufficient oversight, what is the other "part" of how it was developed? With whom (inside and outside the IRS) did they discuss the criteria? Who ARE these people, anyway? Are they career officials or political appointees? What are their partisan backgrounds?

11. On page 7, it states "only first-line management approved references to the Tea Party in the BOLO listing criteria before it was implemented." Fine, but who else KNEW about the references, even if they didn't approve them, and when did they have that knowledge? Apparently, at some point, the Rulings and Agreement Office became aware (see #5 above).  When did that happen, and how?

12. There is a significant paragraph at the bottom of page 7.  Apparently, the Director of Exempt Organizations demanded that the criteria be changed.  But "the team of specialists subsequently changed the criteria in January 2012 without executive approval" (emphasis added).  This screams for investigation.  How did this happen?  Who exactly was this "team of specialists" and what motivated them to freelance this way -- if, indeed, this is what happened?

13. Three months later, the Director, Rulings and Agreements, learned this criteria had been changed by the team of specialists and required all criteria changes to be approved at the executive level before being implemented.  (page 7). How did the R and A director find out about the criteria change? Has such an edict ever been necessary before, and in what circumstances?

14.On page 8, the report states that "Accoding to the Director, Rulings and Agreements, the fact that the team of specialists worked applications that did not involve the Tea Party, Patriots or 9/12 groups demonstrated that the IRS was not politically biased in its identification of applications for processing by the team of specialists.  But of course it does no such thing -- and only opens the veracity of the director to question.  That's because the IG admits on page 8 (footnote 18) that "we could not determine which potential political cases may have been identified based on an organization's policy positions." This admission alone points out the need for further impartial investigation.

15. Page 8 "All cases wtih Tea Party, Patriots or 9/12 in their names were forwarded to the team of specialists." That is, they were flagged for harassment.  This indicates that something more than "ineffective oversight" or "ineffective management" was at work.

16. Page 9 - 141 applications were not appropriately identified as political cases. Were these liberal groups?

17. Page 10 - The report notes that 31% of the 296 applications that had complete documentation and were referred to the "team of specialists" (ie for harassment) showed no "indications of significant political campaign intervention" (i.e., there was no reason to forward them).  The EO function officials disagree with the IG's findings on this point, and provided explanations about why they should have been flagged-- but "the case files did not include the specific reason(s) the appllications were selected." So why does the EO function believe they should have been selected?

18. On page 11, the IRS essentially rejects the IG recommendation that procedures be developed to "better document the reason(s) applications are chosen for review by the team of specialists."  Instead, the IRS "stated it will review its screening procedures to determine whether, and to what extent, additional documentation can be implemented without having an adverse impact on the timeliness of case processing." While the stated concern about timeliness(!) is commendable, could it be possible the real motive is to maintain some degree of subjectivity in flagging applications?!

19. On page 12, the IG asserts that "Potential political cases took significantly longer than average to process due to ineffective management oversight" (emphasis added). Again, how has this conclusion been reached?  Is it based only on the assertions of those interviewed at the IRS?  And whose management, specifically?

20. Page 12 also notes a signficant delay in processing potentially political cases [once knwon as Tea Party cases] from 10/10 through 11/11 while the team of specialists waited for assistance from the Technical Unit allegedly to ensure consistency in processing.  But the report states that the Exempt Organizations management didn't ensure that a formal process was in place for tracking or monitoring assistance requests.  This is a procedural critique, not a substantive one -- but what should really be probed is whether and when requests for assistance were made; by whom; by whom they were received; how they were handled; who knew about them.

21. Page 13 says that in April 2010 the Determinations Unit Program Manager requested a contact in the Technical Unit for help with processing the applications, and a technical unit specialist was assigned to work with the team of determinations specialists.  Who was this person, and what kind of assistance was needed? Was it given?  And why did the team of specialists stop processing potential political applications in October if they already had the help they had requested? Did this helper simply put in place another way to slow-walk the applications (see #20)?

22. On page 13, the report states that the team of determinations specialists stopped processing potential political applications in October 2010 without closing any, but the Determinations Unit Program Manager thought the cases were being processed.  Why did s/he think so? On what basis did s/he reach that conclusion?  The IG was informed "later" by "the Director, Rullings and Agreements, that there was a miscommunication about processing the cases." What was this miscommunication? Who was involved in these miscommunications -- with whom, and how? Is there any written record of this "miscommunication"?

23. Draft written guidance from Technical finally came in November 2011 (13 months after Determinations Unit stopped processing the potential political cases) -- but as of the end of February 2013, the guidance had not been finalized because the EO function decided to provide training instead.  Who made this decision?  It appears that the whole need assistance / need consistency in processing guidelines / provide training instead conveniently allowed the whole process to be pushed past the 2012 elections.  Was this in fact the intent?

24. On page 14, the IG states that there "appeared to be some confusion by Determinations Unit specialists and applications on what activities are allowed by IRC 501(c)(4) organizations."  The IG attributes this "confusion" to a "lack of specific guidance on how to determine the 'primary activity'" of such an organization.  Has there been similar "confusion" in the past?  Why was this "confusion" evident only now? 501(c)(4) organizations have been around for some time.  

25. The team of specialists were trained about 501(c)(4) organizations in May 2012. Before this, only 2% of 298 applications were approved.  Which six were they? After this training, an additional 102 applications were approved by December 2012 (28% involved Tea Party, Patriot or 9/12 organizations).  When exactly were these approvals granted?  Who were the other approvals? Were the bulk of them after the election, or so close to it that the organization's function was irretrievably compromised?

26. On pages 16-17, the IG again recommends development of publicly available guidance on tax-exempt status involving potentially significant political campaign intervention.  And again, the IRS is resisting objective, public standards for making such determinations (see #18 above).  Why?  Who is in charge of the responses to these recommendations and is resisting transparency and objectivity?

27. On page 18, the report notes that the "Determinations Unit requested donor information from 27 organizations [13 of which had Tea Party, Patriot or 9/12 in their names] that it would be required to make public if the application was approved, even though this information could not be disclosed by the IRS when provided by organizations whose tax-exempt status had been approved." Who in the unit requested this information? Was it given to any other outside groups, like Pro Publica? Which groups were targeted with such requests?

@CPLiebau

For the second night in a row last night, Jon Stewart hammered the Obama administration about mounting scandals. Last night specifically, Stewart called out the administration's bogus claim that they find out about all of their scandals, IRS, Fast and Furious, DOJ tapping phones of reporters, etc. through "news reports."

Remember what we were told when this explosive story first broke less than a week ago?  The IRS official in charge of tax exemptions for organizations said the improper methods employed within her division were executed by "low level workers" in Cincinnati who weren't motivated by "political bias," and impacted roughly 75 organizations?  Wrong, wrong and wrong: 

"Low Level" - Officials within the highest echelons of the agency were aware of the inappropriate targeting, including the last two commissioners -- at least one of whom appears to have misled Congress on this very question.  Now Politico reports that Lerner herself sent at least one of the probing letters to an Ohio-based conservative group. 

The director of the Internal Revenue Service division under fire for singling out conservative groups sent a 2012 letter under her name to one such group, POLITICO has learned. The March 2012 letter was sent to the Ohio-based American Patriots Against Government Excess (American PAGE) under the name of Lois Lerner, the director of the Exempt Organizations Division...at the time of the letter, the group was in the midst of the application process for tax-exempt nonprofit status — a process that would stretch for nearly three years and involve queries for detailed information on its social media activity, its organizational set-up, bylaws, membership and interactions with political officials. The letter threatened to close American PAGE’s case file unless additional information was received within 60 days.

These burdensome requests were apparently designed to bury the victimized groups in paperwork.  Carol reported last night that some 58 percent of these applicants were asked for unnecessary information and data, according to the Inspector General's review.  Some inquiries asked for screenshots of organizations' Facebook posts and even lists of what books (!) its members were reading.  

"No Political Bias" - This claim was laughable on its face from the start, in light of the agency's surreal criteria for added scrutiny and the "red flag" words and phrases that triggered investigations.  Now add to the mix this scoop from USA Today:

In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked. That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn't be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months. In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows. As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with liberal-sounding names had their applications approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," the liberal groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups.

Lerner also reportedly fast-tracked an approval for a foundation operated by President Obama's half brother, taking the extraordinary step of granting it retroactive tax-free status.

"Seventy-five organizations effected" - That number almost immediately swelled to 300.  Now it's closer to 500:

The IRS targeting of conservative groups is far broader than first reported, with nearly 500 organizations singled out for additional scrutiny, according to two lawmakers briefed by the agency.  IRS officials claimed on Friday that roughly 300 groups received additional scrutiny. Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said Tuesday that the number has actually risen to 471. Further, they said it is "unclear" whether Tea Party and other conservative groups are being targeted to this day.

We have an answer to that question now, too.  Here's Carol again, quoting the cover letter from the IG's findings, dated yesterday: "A substantial number of applications have been under review, some for more than three years and through two election cycles, and remain open."  Lest you even ask, nobody involved in this scheme has been disciplined (yet); just the opposite, in fact:

from #IRS briefing to Hill: no employees involved in inappropriate scrutiny of conservative groups disciplined, one was promoted.

— John King (@JohnKingCNN) May 14, 2013

More allegations of IRS impropriety are cropping up across the country, and similar questions are now being raised about political favoritism within the EPA's FOIA request process: "Conservative groups seeking information from the Environmental Protection Agency have been routinely hindered by fees normally waived for media and watchdog groups, while fees for more than 90 percent of requests from green groups were waived, according to requests reviewed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute."  This steady drumbeat of ugliness was enough to prompt NBC's Nightly News to kick off its broadcast with a Nixon comparison last evening, and for Jonathan Alter to pronounce the administration's crisis management efforts "disastrous:"

An "unhealthy love" for Obama is a diagnosis that applies to some people well beyond the White House walls.  Think, for instance, of the famously tingly man who hosts the show on which Alter appeared.  The good news in all of this is that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid see these allegations of Statist bullying as a prime opportunity to...turn back the clock on stifling political speech and pass pet legislation that would hamper conservative organizations while shielding Democrats' union cronies.  Good luck with that, guys.  Conservatives have far better messaging opportunities here: If the IRS is at best grossly incompetent, and at worst maliciously politicized, how can they be trusted to enforce Obamacare starting next year?  And don't citizens have more cause than ever to be leery of ideas like national gun registries?  Parting quotation: "What we are witnessing is nothing less than a dramatic reversal of the nation’s political narrative."