Frank Lautenberg, the last World War II veteran serving in the United States Senate, died of natural causes this morning at the age of 89:

Frank R. Lautenberg, who rose from a poor Paterson boyhood to become a multimillionaire businessman and New Jersey’s longest-serving U.S. senator, died Monday at 89 of viral pneumonia, his office said. The oldest member of the Senate, Lautenberg had struggled with health problems since late last year, when he missed several weeks of votes because of what he said was flu and bronchitis. The death of Lautenberg, a Democrat, creates a vacancy that Gov. Christie, a Republican, will fill. Lautenberg returned to Washington in February and announced he would not seek re-election in 2014, but hoped to complete a series of accomplishments before his term ended. He had a breakthrough last month on one of them, a bill to overhaul the law that regulates chemicals used in household products, when a bipartisan compromise bill was unveiled. But he also experienced weakness in his legs throughout the year, and missed several more weeks of votes. On May 16, he returned in a wheelchair and said he was feeling better and hoped to be in Washington more regularly.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the Lautenberg family as they grieve their loss.  Politically, Lautenberg was a reliable liberal vote in the Senate, where he served five terms spanning three decades.  He was an anti-smoking crusader and an ardent defender of public funding of Amtrak.  He retired from the Senate in 2000, only to be thrust back into the game two years later when fellow Democrat Sen. Bob Torricelli became embroiled in scandal and exited the race very late in the cycle.  Lautenberg stepped in at the eleventh hour and won the election by ten points against a relatively unknown Republican opponent.  Lautenberg's passing may impact the balance of power in the Senate, at least temporarily.  According to New Jersey law, Gov. Chris Christie will select a placeholder who will serve until a special election is held, probably in November.  Lautenberg's office announced in February that he would not seek re-election in 2014.  Prior to the Senator's death, Newark Mayor Cory Booker was already widely believed to be eyeing the opening, and is therefore a likely candidate to run in the special election to fill Lautenberg's seat for one year.   If he wins -- which is a very strong possibility -- Booker would have to run for the same seat again in 2014 in order to secure a full six-year term.  As for the issue of Lautenberg's very temporary replacement (whose term would last less than half a year leading up to the special election), New Jersey political observers are speculating about Christie's next move.  There's a chance that the governor could appoint a Democrat, but perhaps a safer bet is that he'll install one of the GOP's recent Senate nominees: Tom Kean, Jr. -- son of the former Republican governor -- and Joe Kyrillos, a Christie ally who lost to Sen. Bob Menendez last year.  Both are State Senators.  Another possibility is Christie's Lt. Governor, Kim Guadagno.  

UPDATE - Here is a report about Christie's impromptu eulogy of Lautenberg.

UPDATE II - Video added, via Time:

Over the weekend, House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa called White House Press Secretary Jay Carney a paid liar, because that's exactly what he is.

“Their paid liar, their spokesperson, the picture behind, he’s still making up things about what happened and calling this a local rogue,” said Issa, pointing to a picture of Jay Carney.

“The reason that Lois Lerner tried to take the fifth [amendment] is not because there’s a rogue in Cincinnati,” he added. “It’s because this is a problem that was coordinated. in all likelihood, right out of Washington headquarters.”

Today on CBS, Senator John McCain just couldn't help but express his opposition to using the term "liar."

I'm just waiting for McCain to call Issa a "whacko bird" for daring to investigate the scandal ridden administration.

One could argue Carney is simply the messenger for a lying administration, fine, but Carney is the one willing to take the money to do it at this point. The administration has been caught in lie after lie about Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the DOJ reporter monitoring and has an ever changing story about the IRS targeting of tea party groups. Obama administration scandals have been sanitized enough already by the press, it would be nice if John McCain would refrain from doing the same.

This post from yesterday reported that Susan Anderson -- wife of former IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman -- works for Public Campaign, a lefty-seeming group that denied it was lefty.

Well, whatever the overall politics of Public Campaign, there is no doubt that Susan Anderson herself is lefty . . . and occasionally vitriolic about it.  A cursory inspection of her twitter feed reveals cordial correspondence with peeps like Katrina vanden Heuvel of The Nation, a retweet of an NAACP leader's slam on "Koch brothers' money," a retweet of someone begging Harry Reid for "filibuster reform," criticism of Bob McDonnell for "blocking women's access to health care" and her own snarky speculation that "GOP pines for Old Europe after all."

Here's a particularly pleasant offering. Twitchy has documented some of her more annoying, highly partisan tweets -- a complete list here. 

Admittedly, Ms. Anderson's politics may not be Mr. Shulman's . . . but her twitter feed is indicative of the atmosphere that filled the IRS commissioner's home at the time conservatives were routinely being targeted by the agency he headed.

Interestingly, Ms. Anderson stopped tweeting in early May, about the time when the IRS investigation started to heat up.  Coincidence? You decide. 

Are the long knives finally getting unsheathed for Eric Holder?  Veteran NBC Newsman Tom Brokaw offered this blunt assessment of Holder's viability on Meet the Press:

The New York Times piece cited by both Gregory and Brokaw hints that President Obama's proverbial bus may be revving up its engine:

Over the course of four and a half years, no other member of President Obama’s cabinet has been at the center of so many polarizing episodes or the target of so much criticism. While the White House publicly backed Mr. Holder as he tried to smooth over the latest uproar amid new speculation about his future, some in the West Wing privately tell associates they wish he would step down, viewing him as politically maladroit. But the latest attacks may stiffen the administration’s resistance in the near term to a change for fear of emboldening critics … But that does not mitigate the frustration of some presidential aides. “The White House is apoplectic about him, and has been for a long time,” said a Democratic former government official who did not want to be identified while talking about friends. Some advisers to Mr. Obama believe that Mr. Holder does not manage or foresee problems, the former official said. “How hard would it be to anticipate that The A.P. would be unhappy?” the former official said. “And then they haven’t defended their position.”

Brokaw believes Team Obama may be executing a Beltway "two-step," where named administration officials stand by their man on the record, while deputies telegraph the White House's true sentiments on background.  In this case, the Times reports that West Wing insiders are trying to nudge Holder toward the door, his central crime being political maladriotness.  Their "apoplexy" over the Attorney General isn't on the merits of his terrible decisions and obvious dishonesty, mind you.  They're cool with his behavior -- from pressing for Bush-era recriminations, to backing New York City trials for Al Qaeda leaders, to presiding over and misleading Congress on Fast & Furious, to spying on journalists.  What they can't abide is Holder's lack of political finesse in carrying out his agenda.  These unnamed administration sources say they "wish" Holder would just step down on his own and spare everyone more headaches.  What they fail to mention, of course, is that the Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the president.  Barack Obama can pull the plug on Holder whenever he'd like; "wishing" has nothing to do with it. 

Holder's stewardship of the Justice Department has been controversial, ham-fisted, and exceedingly political.  In the midst of the current scandal, Holder has alternatively pleaded ignorance and innocence -- calling further into question his veracity, and his PR team's latest ploy was an abject embarrassment.  The Attorney General is a lightning rod.  He's an incompetent at best, and a malicious liar at worst.  He's being investigated for perjury, the prima facie case for which is rather strong.  He's been held in criminal contempt of Congress on a separate issue.  And he's carrying out a farcical investigation into himself, which is a public laughingstock.   Why hasn't the president tossed Holder overboard, as he's done with other subordinates who've outlived their usefulness?  Three prevailing theories:  (1) Holder knows too much.  Because the Attorney General knows "where the bodies are buried" within this administration, Obama can't afford to alienate him by offering him up as a sacrificial lamb.  (2) Obama and Holder's relationship is very strong, so the former is treating the latter with extraordinary patience.  Obama places a high premium on political loyalty; in addition to being a close friend and confidante, Holder has been a reliable ally in wielding his power to advance the president's agenda over the years.  (3) Cutting Holder loose in the thick of scandalmania (which appears to be expanding by the day) may accomplish little more than emboldening Obama's critics and fueling the media feeding frenzy.  I personally come down in the middle of options two and three.  Option one would be more compelling if I didn't believe Holder is extremely unlikely to "flip" on Obama under almost any circumstance; he likely sees his legacy as inextricably linked to his boss's, and would therefore do nothing to intentionally harm the Obama presidency.

If you were hoping the Occupy Wall Street movement was dead, you'll have to wait a little longer. The ACLU just filed a lawsuit on behalf of occupiers on Ohio. Their complaint? Their free speech rights were infringed upon because they weren't allowed to indefinitely camp in public places. More from Jason Hart:

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Ohio has filed suit against the City of Columbus on behalf of Occupy Columbus, the socialist protesters who squatted on a sidewalk in front of the Ohio Statehouse in late 2011 and removed their frequently-vacant tent when the city tightened permitting rules last summer.

The local Occupy Wall Street group maintains that restricting use of tents and other structures in a public right-of-way infringes on speech and assembly rights protected in the First Amendment as well as in Article I of the Ohio Constitution.

Based on the complaint filed on May 30 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, the Occupy Columbus case rests on the premise that placing a tent, table, or other structure that “is not easily movable” in public space amounts to protected speech.

“One of the defining physical features of the Occupy movement is the presence of its tent,” the complaint explains. “The tent is used to symbolize the ‘occupancy’ of public forums until the imbalance of power in political and economic structures has been addressed.”

Apparently stinking up our public places wasn't enough for OWS, now they'll be stinking up our court systems too.

Last week on CNN's The Lead with Jake Tapper, former Deputy Campaign Manager for Barack Obama, Stephanie Cutter, openly admitted she was in on meetings with former IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman at the White House. Cutter argued that because she was in those meetings, then of course nothing discriminatory or illegal was happening and offered a full defense of Shulman, who has been accused of lying to Congress over the improper targeting of conservative groups. Gateway Pundit caught the segment:

"A couple of facts here that I think are important for us to stick by, number one, the only reason we know about these visits is because the president makes everything public. Number two, what we’re really looking at some of these visits… What we are looking at the number of times that Mr. Shulman was cleared into the White House. It doesn’t necessarily mean he went to a meeting. Number three, many of those meetings were for healthcare implementation. I was in them with him. So there’s nothing nefarious going on.”

Then, on ABC's This Week on Sunday, former Senior Obama Campaign Adviser David Plouffe also offered a full defense of the IRS, arguing that because the Inspector General said the targeting was non-political that of course it was non-political. Karl Rove then proceeded to point out the obvious reason the targeting was political: only conservative groups were singled out for extra scrutiny.

ROVE: Baloney. Baloney.

PLOUFFE: Not baloney, Karl.

ROVE: If it was not political then why are only conservative groups being targeted?

PLOUFFE: There were liberal groups targeted.

ROVE: Oh really? Name one. Name one. But what conservative, what liberal group had Tea Party or patriot in its name that it was targeted? Not a single liberal group has appeared to say…

PLOUFFE: You’re taking license here, Karl.

ROVE: No, I’m not. I am not at all.

And then of course, former Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod is in full defend-the-White-House mode surrounding the IRS scandal.

So, at the same time President Obama has said the IRS scandal is "inexcusable," his former campaign team is out on the airwaves softening the blow to the IRS for targeting conservative groups.

UPDATE: New transcripts from congressional investigators show the IRS targeting was explicitly political. Via Ed Morrissey.

And another more senior IRS Cincinnati employee complained about micromanagement from D.C.:

Q: But you specifically recall that the BOLO terms included “Tea Party?”  
A: Yes, I do.  
Q: And it was your understanding -- was it your understanding that the purpose of the BOLO was to identify Tea Party groups?  
A: That is correct.  
Q: Was it your understanding that the purpose of the BOLO was to identify conservative groups?  
A: Yes, it was.  
Q: Was it your understanding that the purpose of the BOLO was to identify Republican groups?  
A: Yes, it was.

Breitbart.com is reporting that former IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman's wife works for Public Campaign, which Breitbart describes as a "leftist campaign reform group."   Not surprisingly, Public Campaign disputes that characterization.

So see for yourself.  Here is the Public Campaign web site.  A cursory inspection fails to find any stated support for any initative propunded by anyone without a "D" after his or her name -- but you be the judge.

At the very least, Public Campaign does seem as though it is the type of group that would be particularly agitated by the rise of Tea Party groups using the 501(c)(4) vehicle.  How much impact (if any) that had on Doug Shulman or his thinking has yet to be determined -- but at the very least, it's worth pointing out.

No doubt the MSM would have done so had the wife of a commissioner accused of targeting liberal groups worked for a right-leaning ideological interest group.

The UK Daily Mail has obtained transcripts from IRS employee interviews with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that make it clear that political targeting wasn't -- and couldn't have been -- a small operation run by a few rogue employees in Ohio.

What's most noteworthy is the observation by one employee that he applied for a different job to avoid being thrown "under the bus" by Washington when the targeting became public.  He was smart.  

Any Ohio IRS agent with any information about orders from Washington would likewise be smart to speak up truthfully and set the record straight -- because the Obama administration has shown an unsettling willingness to allow those taking orders to take the blame for those giving them.

Rep. Darrell Issa didn't mince words this morning in an interview with CNN's State of the Union with Candy Crowley, making his feelings on the IRS scandal--and the White House's handling of it--known. Calling Jay Carney a "paid liar," Issa asserted that the targeting scandal originated in Washington, contrary to what Carney and other officials have said when questioned on the matter.

“Their paid liar, their spokesperson, the picture behind, he’s still making up things about what happened and calling this a local rogue,” said Issa, pointing to a picture of Jay Carney.

“The reason that Lois Lerner tried to take the fifth [amendment] is not because there’s a rogue in Cincinnati,” he added. “It’s because this is a problem that was coordinated. in all likelihood, right out of Washington headquarters.”

As Chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Issa has been directly involved in the investigation of the targeting scandal, and in the interview, noted that he has a transcript of an IRS employee insinuating under oath that someone in DC cooked up the idea to go after conservative groups. Safe to say, he intends to see the scandal through until he finds the parties responsible--and he seems pretty confident that White House officials are lying through their teeth.

As this post from yesterday pointed out, it's hardly news to those who read the IRS IG report that Americans were targeted by the IRS -- not just based on membership in the "Tea Party" or "9/12" -- but based on their political sympathies generally.

Last night, the Wall Street Journal reported on another example of this phenomenon.  

Apparently, an IRS probe of Freedom Watch began in (surprise!) the unit headed by Lois Lerner (still enjoying a full-pay and full-benefits vacation, courtesy of the taxpayers she harassed).  According to the WSJ:

In February 2010, the same month the tea-party targeting started, according to a recent inspector general's report, Freedom's Watch was subjected to an IRS audit that focused largely on its political activities, an uncommon but not unprecedented action, election lawyers say. The probe broadened into other areas, including executive compensation.

About a year later, as many as five donors to Freedom's Watch were subjected to IRS audits of their contributions that sought to impose gift taxes on their donations to the group, according to lawyers and former officials of Freedom's Watch.

Tax experts say that effort was highly unusual. The IRS generally hadn't sought to impose the gift tax on donations to tax-exempt groups such as Freedom's Watch in at least 20 years, perhaps longer, following an unfavorable court ruling and changes in the law by Congress, according to lawyers and IRS documents.

And again, you have to wonder: Why does Lois Lerner still have a job?