What a Difference a Scandal Switch Makes: Oversight Dems on Fire vs. ex-IRS Chief
Warning of a special prosecutor, hard grilling over the target list, threatening there will be "hell to pay": Will the comity last?
May 22, 2013 - 7:03 pm
On a scandal-to-scandal basis, you’d hardly know that the same Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee were in the Benghazi hearing two weeks ago and today’s similarly anticipated hearing on the IRS scandal.
Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), for example, charged Republicans with being “disgraceful” on the Benghazi investigation and dismissed claims of retaliation against whistleblowers. Others accused the GOPs of stoking scandal where none exists.
Today, Lynch came at former IRS commissioner Doug Shulman with both barrels, comparing the “blatant violations of individual freedom of expression” to repression of political activists in China and Belarus.
“Anything that criticizes the government on how this country is being run. That was subject to enhanced investigation by the IRS,” Lynch said. “…If this committee is prevented by obstruction or by refusal to answer the questions that we need to get to the bottom of this, you will leave us no alternative but to ask for the appointment of a special prosecutor, our appointment to special counsel to get to the bottom of this.”
“I watched the last hearing where the witness for the IRS had no names and no direction as to who led these investigations, who chose the terms to be used and basically stonewalled the committee,” the Massachusetts Democrat continued. “That cannot continue. We know where that will lead. It will lead to a special prosecutor. It will lead to special counsel being appointed to get to the bottom of this. So I hope that’s not the approach of the IRS going forward because there will be hell to pay if that’s the route that we choose to go down.”
White House press secretary Jay Carney brushed off Lynch’s call as “a hypothetical.”
“I expect independent criminal investigations — so I haven’t had this conversation — but I expect that the attorney general and those who will work on the investigation at the Department of Justice expect to get answers. And, again, I think you have a 30-day top-down review at the IRS with new leadership. You have congressional oversight. You have Department of Justice investigating. I think that demonstrates the seriousness that both branches of government are — the seriousness of which both branches of government here are addressing this matter,” Carney said.
“And I don’t think that there’s any indication, given that seriousness, given that determination to get to the bottom of this, to get the facts and to hold people accountable, that there’s any reason to take that step. And that’s the president’s view, as he said last week.”
But as Lynch feared, Shulman was no more forthcoming today than he was before the Senate Finance Committee yesterday.
“I personally don’t remember ever hearing about this until the spring of 2012,” said the former commissioner who stepped down three days after President Obama’s re-election. When asked why he would have been at the White House 118 times in 2010 and 2011 if he didn’t have any conversations with Obama about the targeting, Shulman mused that he must have been at “the Easter egg roll with my kids.”
That answer annoyed Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), who leaned heavily on questions regarding Citizens United and whether Tea Party groups did enough social welfare work to qualify for tax-exempt status. Connolly’s tone changed with the indignance of Shulman, and he testily reminded the ex-IRS chief that he was under oath.
“You’ve never had any conversation with respect to this subject, the subject of this hearing, with anybody at the White House, though you were at the White House 118 times?” Connolly asked.
“Yeah, I mean, just so I’m — just so I’m clear, I have no memory. Wouldn’t have been appropriate. Would not have been appropriate to have a conversation with the White — with anyone at the White House about the subject of discriminating against conservative groups in any part of our operation,” Shulman responded.
Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) grilled Shulman on why he failed to inform Congress about the target list last year when he learned of it.
“So, what I can recall is that I learned about the list after that testimony. And when I learned about the list, I learned two other things. You know first I — I learned that the activities were stopped. So by the time it got to me, the list was no longer being used within appropriate criteria, and I also learned that the matter was in the hands of the IG,” Shulman said. “…Were there liberal groups as well as conservative groups? I didn’t have the facts.”
“That answer would be more acceptable if you had not given the answer that you did in March 2012. When Congress asks you a question and then you say these words, ‘There’s absolutely no targeting,’ it seems to me that even given what you just said, you knew that Congress was concerned about this issue? You knew then that the information — you just said it, had been corrected. But it seems to me that if you say to the Congress, absolutely not! Absolutely no targeting! It seems to me that you would come back, even it was a phone call, or letter, or something — I mean common sense,” Cummings said.
“People — I mean a reasonable person would expect you as the head of the IRS, communicating with Congress, to come back and do that. You didn’t feel that way, though?”
Shulman was ever on the defensive. “At the time I learned about this list, I felt I was taking the appropriate actions, and that my course was the proper one,” he said. “And I still feel that way today.”