SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Peter Dierks who wrote (65594)6/9/2013 12:45:58 AM
From: greatplains_guy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Peter Dierks

  Respond to of 71588
 
Cleta Mitchell: How to Investigate the IRS
Cleta Mitchell, the attorney who helped expose the tax agency's abuses, has a road map for identifying the culprits. It doesn't stop in Cincinnati.
June 7, 2013, 6:40 p.m. ET.

By JAMES FREEMAN
Washington

The woman who helped expose IRS abuse of conservative activists has more news to share: The abuse continues, and she sees no evidence that the White House, the IRS or the Justice Department is doing anything to end it. "This is not in the past tense. This is still going on," says Cleta Mitchell, perhaps the country's pre-eminent expert on campaign-finance and political tax law.

In 2012, Ms. Mitchell worked to persuade members of Congress that reports of IRS harassment of conservative groups were credible. GOP lawmakers demanded information from the IRS and triggered the internal audit that finally forced the agency last month to acknowledge abuses it had previously denied. Now Ms. Mitchell is determined to end the abuse and identify the culprits.

Don't bet against her. A partner at elite international law firm Foley and Lardner, Ms. Mitchell is sketching out a road map to uncover the truth and force reform—whether or not the Obama administration cooperates.

So far it looks like the administration will not. Ms. Mitchell represents nine conservative organizations that, beginning around 2010, were subjected to unusual delays, in many cases unlawful demands for information, and in some cases unlawful releases of their confidential data. But she reports that despite filling out the paperwork required by law and regulation, only one of the nine has received the customary IRS approval letter to operate as a tax-exempt group. She says another client received a new letter from the IRS with "very bizarre questions" as recently as three weeks ago.

The Justice Department is allegedly conducting a criminal investigation of the IRS abuse. Has anyone from Justice contacted her or her clients to gather evidence? "Not about this. The FBI's contacted some tea party leaders about their meetings and who comes to their meetings," she says. "I guess they viewed the tea party as domestic terrorists." She is puzzled that the feds aren't asking about IRS targeting: "You'd think that they would, wouldn't you?"

They should, and perhaps the Securities and Exchange Commission ought to start a case file as well. Ms. Mitchell says she learned this week that the IRS even intervened in the business dealings of a donor to conservative causes. "There were two public companies that were in the process of trying to do a merger and somehow the IRS stepped in and demanded all this information and said, 'If you don't give it to us we'll stop this merger,' " she says. "But I cannot get [the donor] to come forward . . . 'Look I've been through this hassle with the IRS. I don't need any more.' People are really afraid and the donors are the most afraid."

She has heard "a number of reports" of conservative donors "having been audited or hassled," but she doesn't have a sense of how many cases there might be. "I hear about them all the time, but so far they've been the most reluctant of all to talk."

Ms. Mitchell, on the other hand, shows no fear as she talks strategy in Foley's Georgetown office overlooking the Potomac River. Maybe that's because this Oklahoma native has already overcome her share of daunting challenges.

"I was raised by a single mom. My dad was kind of a no-account," she says with a chuckle. "But my mother made up for it. She was a very strong woman. Raised six kids." And she demanded excellence from all of them. After Ms. Mitchell's first term at the University of Oklahoma, "I made one B and my mother went around telling everyone that I hadn't done very well but she hoped I'd do better the next semester." She graduated with high honors and a Phi Beta Kappa key.

Like many of her classmates, she also developed a love for the school's famed football team and proved to be as demanding about the Sooners as her mother had been about grades. Shortly after the team's current coach, Bob Stoops, was hired in 1999, she met him at a Washington reception. "You know, coach," she recalls telling him, "the good thing for you is you only need to win three games a year"—against powerhouses Nebraska, Oklahoma State and Texas. When Mr. Stoops responded that Nebraska wasn't on the schedule that year, she replied: "Well, lucky you, you only have to win two games."

These days, winning for her clients doesn't necessarily mean collecting big damage awards. She says the harassed conservative groups are more focused on getting the truth out and ensuring that the IRS's appalling conduct is stopped and never repeated. But the lever of potential monetary penalties could be useful in persuading senior government officials to come clean. Ms. Mitchell is hopeful that, even if the Justice Department sits on its hands, a combination of private lawsuits and congressional investigations can help ascertain who gave the order to target conservatives.

She has filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of an organization called True the Vote that names the IRS as well as previous and current IRS officials as defendants. She promises more lawsuits, including one on behalf of the National Organization for Marriage that had its documents leaked to its antagonists at the Human Rights Campaign.

Ms. Mitchell credits attorney Jay Sekulow for his suit on behalf of other conservative organizations and is encouraged by the work of lawmakers like Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.). "They're just getting started to get to the answers. The first round is the IRS dissembling, denying, deflecting. And now hopefully we're beginning to get to some real information," she says.

Thus far, senior IRS officials in office when the abuses began have often provided untruthful answers, first by telling Congress in 2012 that the IRS wasn't targeting President Obama's ideological opponents and more recently by suggesting that low-level employees were to blame. Sometimes they've been unwilling to provide any answers at all, such as when Lois Lerner, the head of the IRS unit overseeing tax-exempt organizations, asserted her Fifth Amendment privilege to avoid self-incrimination, but not before proclaiming her innocence at a congressional hearing.

In the civil lawsuits, government defendants will still enjoy their Fifth Amendment rights, but the truth may come out anyway. Ms. Mitchell notes that "civil discovery is much broader and doesn't allow for as much opportunity to refuse to answer. There's a magistrate who is appointed to oversee" and resolve disputes on specific questions. And if a person is forced to answer a question during a deposition, "the perjury statutes apply."

But even if officials find ways to remain silent, they might not be able to contain the relevant information. Ms. Mitchell adds that "we are most interested in seeing documents," and that includes emails. Such documents have hardly been examined, because while the IRS's internal audit recently forced the agency to acknowledge abuses it had previously denied, the inquiry consisted mainly of interviews of staff with a supervisor present.

After denying for a year that IRS employees were targeting conservatives, IRS brass were forced by the imminent release of the audit last month to change their story. But they settled on another inaccurate claim: that the problems centered on a few misguided employees in a Cincinnati office. This was contradicted by a Wall Street Journal report this week that Cincinnati workers were being directed and even "micromanaged" by Washington, according to what one IRS employee told congressional investigators.

"I think the press has done a good job of exposing that it wasn't just in Cincinnati," Ms. Mitchell says. "I knew it wasn't." One of her clients has been waiting for approval for nonprofit status since 2009, she says, and for all that time the application was being considered in Washington. "I was told by the agent in Cincinnati, 'Oh well, you send this stuff to us, but we have to send it all to Washington.' " She says that some unusual information requests to conservative groups have also come from the IRS office in Ogden, Utah.

She adds: "I just want to know who did what and when, and I want them to issue the letters and I want them to stop targeting and go back to the process" that prevailed before the current era of abuse.

This current era appears to have begun sometime after the 2008 election of Barack Obama as president, though the Obama campaign itself offered something of a preview. As the Journal's Kimberley A. Strassel has noted, in the summer of 2008 Obama campaign General Counsel Bob Bauer urged the Justice Department's criminal division to investigate the officers and donors of a group called the American Issues Project after it ran a negative ad about Mr. Obama.

The organization was a client of Ms. Mitchell's, so she learned firsthand about the tactics of the Obama campaign and Mr. Bauer: "He would send a letter to the Justice Department demanding that my clients be criminally prosecuted for exercising their First Amendment rights. And then I would write a response, and then he'd write another letter, and I'd immediately write a response."

Mr. Bauer was named White House counsel in late 2009, shortly before the IRS appears to have begun its harassment of conservatives. Now in private practice, he seems like the kind of former official that conservatives might want to question under oath. Could it happen?

"We'd have to find that there was some communication between him and the IRS or something like that," says Ms. Mitchell. Though much may remain to be discovered, she says, the targeting of conservatives in recent years has been remarkably open: "The communications were all pretty public. That's one of the things that I don't think has gotten enough attention, is the use of the IRS as a political tool. There are 17 Democratic senators who will literally sign anything put in front of them going after conservative organizations."

She is referring to letters sent during the last election cycle by various Democrats urging IRS investigations, some of the letters even referencing specific conservative organizations. But Ms. Mitchell might just as easily mention the many speeches in which Mr. Obama has vilified groups opposing his policies and denounced them as threats to democracy or foreign-backed front groups.

All of this history inspires skepticism that the Obama Justice Department will make the abuse of conservatives a high priority for prosecution. So the job may fall to private attorneys like Cleta Mitchell. If she is intimidated at the prospect of taking on the IRS, she is showing no signs of it. "Where I come from in Oklahoma," she says, "the wide open spaces are not just geography. It's a mentality. You can be whatever you're hoss enough to be."

Maybe it's the IRS's turn to worry.

Mr. Freeman is assistant editor of the Journal's editorial page.

online.wsj.com



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (65594)6/15/2013 10:13:58 AM
From: greatplains_guy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Peter Dierks

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
The Cincinnati Lie
By Rich Lowry
June 14, 2013

The IRS hadn’t spoken four sentences about its targeting of conservative groups before it blamed “our line people in Cincinnati.”

Those were the words of Lois Lerner on May 10, when she acknowledged the misconduct in an answer to a question planted at an American Bar Association conference. In a phone session with reporters later that day, she famously admitted that she is not good at math. It turns out that she is not good at geography, either.

The locus of the IRS scandal, it has steadily emerged, is not in Cincinnati but in Washington, where lawyers and supervisors were aware of and directed the special scrutiny for tea party groups applying for 501(c)(4) status. This has falsified a line of defense that the administration and its allies have held as assiduously as Lt. John Chard’s troops at Rorke’s Drift in the Anglo-Zulu War.

Jay Carney explained on May 20: “There were line employees at the IRS who improperly targeted conservative groups.” Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington state summed it all up at a Ways and Means Committee hearing by saying, “This small group of people in the Cincinnati office screwed up.” Just the other day on the “O’Reilly Factor,” James Carville held out the possibility that the whole mess was caused by — yes — “some people in the Cincinnati office.”

They have all made Cincinnati a byword for scandal. By their account, there’s no explaining Cincinnatians. They are a strange and foreign people, noted for their bristling hostility to the tea party and their cussed resistance to direction or oversight from above. It’s a wonder the IRS is even able to maintain an office in Cincinnati, given the inherent recklessness of workers in that remote southern Ohio city.

The Cincinnati explanation has many virtues. It serves to minimize the scandal by blaming it on what sounds like a bureaucratic backwater, and it throws lower-level employees — rather than their supervisors — under the bus. Most important, the Cincinnati IRS office is about 505 miles from the White House, 504.2 more miles than the IRS headquarters at 1111 Constitution Ave. N.W.

But the Blame Cincinnati First crowd should have had no credibility from the beginning. As my National Review colleague Eliana Johnson reported, the inspector general report, released right after the scandal broke, detailed in its chronology how Cincinnati employees constantly interacted with Washington. In May 2010, staff in the so-called Determinations Unit in Cincinnati were told to “send additional information request letters to the Technical Unit for review prior to issuance.” The Technical Unit is in Washington.

About a week later, the Technical Unit “began reviewing additional information request letters prepared by the Determinations Unit.” IRS lawyers in Washington approved intrusive questions of tea party groups and even wrote them. Staff in Cincinnati complained that all the micromanagement from Washington was gumming up the works.

The House Oversight Committee investigation has found the same thing. A Cincinnati employee named Gary Muthert said in an interview with committee investigators that he flagged tea party applications because his supervisor told him that “Washington, D.C., wanted some cases,” specifically it “wanted seven.”

Johnson reports that another Cincinnati employee, Elizabeth Hofacre, was shocked when Lerner initially blamed Cincinnati. She told committee investigators, “It was a nuclear strike on us.” For her, the motivation was obvious: “I just thought when Lois Lerner dropped that bombshell, ‘Oh, it was Cincinnati’s problem,’ she thought it would go away, but instead it exploded.”

In Hofacre’s telling, it’s impossible to have a rogue operation of a couple employees in Cincinnati “because of how we are organized.” She explained, “the managers, they have really tight inventory-control systems. I mean they get periodic prints of our inventory, so they know exactly what cases we had, how old they are, how long we have had them and stuff like that. So these two rogue agents running amok for three years, even for three months, it would never happen.”

Notwithstanding all this, the ranking Democrat on the Oversight Committee, Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings has pronounced the IRS scandal solved. He cites the testimony of one Cincinnati manager who says he has no reason to believe that the White House was involved. The manager also says the focus on the tea party arose because someone in Cincinnati went to the Technical Unit with questions on how to handle an initial application in 2010.

Even if this account is correct, it’s a far cry from the Cincinnati-centric defense initially on offer. It means that Washington was involved from the very beginning. As director of Exempt Organizations, and someone who knew about the targeting and was involved in the targeting years ago, this shouldn’t have been a surprise to Lois Lerner. She, after all, works — or worked — in Washington.

The Obama administration’s scandal trifecta has recently become scandal overload. But the IRS is still the most portentous. For now, the initial line of defense at Cincinnati is in ruins.

Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review.

realclearpolitics.com



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (65594)6/20/2013 12:07:16 AM
From: greatplains_guy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Jack Be Quick

  Respond to of 71588
 
Why the IRS IG Stopped with an Audit
Probably in part because the Obama administration intimidates inspector generals.
By Gerald Walpin
June 14, 2013 4:00 AM

Among all the unanswered questions about the IRS’s illegal targeting of conservative organizations, one is most crucial: Who ordered this extreme scrutiny?

Amazingly, IRS inspector general J. Russell George, responsible for the investigation asking those questions about the IRS, has testified that he did not obtain that information.

Details of that testimony are interesting. Representative Tom Graves (R., Ga.) asked, “Have you asked the individuals who ordered them to use this extra scrutiny to punish, or penalize, or postpone, or deny?” George turns around to confer with his assistant. Just the fact that the inspector general had to confer to know the answer to this crucial question is amazing. George’s assistant says something to him that is not recorded, but one can see the assistant shaking his head back and forth. Then George responds publicly to the question, saying, “During our audit, Congressman, we did pose that question and no one would acknowledge who, if anyone, provided that direction.”

Anyone who knows anything about the rights and responsibilities of an inspector general has to be shaking his head in disbelief at George’s explanation. First, every employee of the government has the responsibility to cooperate with and provide information to an IG concerning his work.
Second, George was particularly careful to limit his answer to the “audit phase.” Every IG has two procedures to obtain information. One is audit procedure, to which IG George referred. That’s generally limited to accounting analysis, to determine whether there may be reason to open an investigation. Once there is reason — and there clearly was reason here, given the obviously illegal conduct — the IG opens an investigation, in which investigators, not auditors, pose the questions, the department employees are placed under oath, and, as a federal court has approved, informed that “failure to answer completely and truthfully may result in disciplinary action, including dismissal.” The question is why George’s office didn’t do this immediately.

From my personal experience as an IG of another agency, I suspect the answer. I do not blame IG George personally, as he is a career civil servant who depends on a steady salary and, thereafter, a pension.

But I learned, through being fired by the Obama administration, that performing one’s responsibilities as one should, and potentially adversely affecting the administration’s image, is not the way to keep one’s job. (Fortunately, I was not dependent on my federal IG salary.)

That reality was made apparent to me — and, through what happened to me, to all IGs — when I supported my staff of longtime dedicated civil servants, who had recommended taking action against one Kevin Johnson, a former NBA player who had misused, for personal purposes, about $750,000 of an AmeriCorps grant intended for underprivileged young people. What I did not then know was that he was a friend and supporter of President Obama — a fact that caused the proverbial you-know-what to hit the fan.

Without detailing all that happened, the bottom line was that I started to receive pressure to drop the case against Mr. Johnson. When I declined to repudiate my staff’s work, the guillotine fell: I was summarily telephoned that if I did not resign in one hour, I would be fired. And I was, along with my special assistant, John Park. The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote of my firing(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124511811033017539.html): “The evidence suggests that [President Obama’s] White House fired a public official who refused to roll over to protect a Presidential crony.”

Similar questions have been raised about other IGs who somehow have been discarded. Amtrak IG Fred Weiderhold, Treasury special IG Neil Barofsky, and International Trade Commission IG Judith Gwynn all left their positions after disputes that weren’t appreciated by the administration, giving more reason for others to go easy with the administration. Further, the president has significantly failed to fill IG vacancies in important agencies (State, Interior, Labor, Homeland Security, and USAID) – well-documented (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324063304578520952503319368.html) by former IG Joseph Schmitz — demeaning the importance of the IG position.

This administration’s treatment of IGs is not conducive to active, independent, and objective inspectors general, and explains at least in part why key questions about the IRS still have not been asked or investigated.

Gerald Walpin was nominated by President George W. Bush in 2006 as inspector general of the Corporation For National and Community Service, and fired by President Obama in June 2009. He is the author of The Supreme Court vs. The Constitution (Significance Press, 2013).

nationalreview.com