Issa Metrics

Rep. Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, is determined to link the White House, and President Barack Obama, to the so-called IRS scandal, even though there is no proof one exists.  The pugnacious, and severely ambitious partisan is more interested in scoring political points than in getting to the truth.

Earlier this month he made his intentions clear during an appearance on CNN's State of the Union.  In speaking about the source of the IRS's inappropriate use of search terms, such as "Tea Party", in its scrutiny of applications for tax-exempt status by conservative groups, Issa pointed to the nation's capital.  Issa called White House spokesman Jay Carney a "paid liar" for his claims that the problem was based in the IRS's local Cincinnati office.  "This is a problem that was coordinated, in all likelihood, right out of Washington headquarters and we're getting to proving it," Issa said.

Of course, "in all likelihood" and "we're getting to proving it" show he does not have the facts to back up his claims.  But that will not stop Issa from doing everything to keep his investigation in the headlines, including dribbling out juicy bits of witness interviews from closed-door sessions to selected media outlets.  For instance, one of the IRS employees interviewed by the committee said their supervisor told them the direction to single out conservative groups came from the Washington headquarters in March 2010.

But Representative Elijah Cummings, Democrat from Maryland, and fellow committee member, called for the entire interview transcripts to be released.  He also released testimony from another IRS official, a manager in the Cincinnati office, who describes himself as a conservative, which appears to explain how the IRS came to target conservative groups.  "There was a lot of concerns about making sure that any cases that had, you know, similar type activities or items included, that they would be worked on by the same agent and the same group," the manager said.  He also said politics was not a factor, and he had no reason to believe the White House was involved.

In response, Issa said, "The testimony excerpts Ranking Member Cummings revealed...did not provide anything enlightening or contradict other witness accounts."  He then added, "The only thing Ranking Member Cummings left clear in his comments today is that if it were up to him the investigation would be closed. Fortunately, the decision to close the investigation is not his to make."

The IRS scandal first made headlines on May 10 when an IRS official apologized for the IRS conduct at a legal conference, which triggered a FBI criminal probe.  President Obama fired the acting IRS chief, who is a Republican, because of the scandal.  An inspector general's report criticized the way the IRS screened conservative groups, saying it placed the agency's impartiality in question.

In an appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, FBI Director Robert Mueller said that more than a dozen FBI agents were assigned to investigate the matter.  "It's a high-priority investigation and it needs to be handled with care, but it also needs to be pushed aggressively because it's a very important case," Mueller told the committee.

There are good reasons for Congress to be investigating the IRS actions.  First of all, it is unacceptable for the IRS to be singling out any group for political reasons.  While all of the Tea Party applications were approved, many organizations had to deal with unfair demands.  Was this political, or confusion, or just insensitivity on the part of agents?

There was a flood in tax-exempt applications following the Supreme Court's Citizen's United ruling in 2010, which made it legal for corporations and unions to spend money on campaigns through political action committees (Super PACs).  Section 501(c)(4) of the IRS tax code specifies that Super PACs seeking tax-exempt status must operate exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.  But a 1959 IRS interpretation of the code changed the word "exclusively" to "primarily".   Exactly what is primarily?  Why was the interpretation changed?  Should it be exclusively?

Representative Issa has served in Congress for more than a decade.  Before being elected, he was a very successful businessman who amassed a fortune estimated at $450 million.  But his brash and shoot from the hip style have rubbed even members of his own party the wrong way.   His selective release of transcripts in the IRS investigation has opened him up to criticism that he is trying to get the Obama administration rather than pursuing a sound investigation.  
 
Earlier this month, Issa said, "My gut tells me that too many people knew this wrongdoing was going on before the election, and at least by some sort of convenient, benign neglect, allowed to go on through the election."  His bottom line, "I'm not making any allegations as to motive, that they set out to do it, but certainly people knew it was happening."   Issa's unsubstantiated allegations may get him headlines, but they also raise Serious questions about his motives and judgment. 

Benghazi Politics

Republicans are obsessed with last September's attack by terrorists on the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.  So rabid are their efforts to uncover a scandal that some in the party are throwing the word impeachment around. 

An independent inquiry, headed by former Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Pickering and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, released a damning report last December.  It found that "systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies" within the State Department resulted in a "security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place."    Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took full responsibility in a Congressional hearing in January. 

Instead of focusing on what is being done to capture the perpetrators and what measures are being put in place to assure it doesn't happen again, tragically Republicans are zeroing in on a misleading set of administration talking points used by officials to explain the attack.   The State Department's top spokeswoman at the time, Victoria Nuland, objected to including the CIA's reference in an early draft to intelligence about the threat from al Qaeda in Benghazi.  ABC News reported that one of her emails said it "could be abused by members (of Congress) to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned."  

With the Presidential Election a few weeks away last fall, Republicans believe that the administration did not want to say anything that would undermine President Barack Obama's claims that Al Qaeda was defeated.  Instead, they believe the talking points were intentionally "scrubbed" of references to Al Qaeda.  And they cite as further proof the statements made by America's U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on the Sunday talks shows that the attack was in response to an anti-Islamic film that had fueled violent anti-American demonstrations at the same time in twenty countries, including Egypt and Tunisia.   

Were her statements, which came from the talking points, a deliberate attempt to mislead the American people?    Reuters reported that, "A source familiar with the Benghazi communications said Nuland was concerned the talking points went further than what she was allowed to say during her briefings and that 'the CIA was attempting to exonerate itself at the State Department's expense.'"  In other words, this was a skirmish between two government agencies over who would be blamed.  

In Wednesday's Congressional hearing, chaired by Republican Representative Darrell Issa, three witnesses spoke at length about the incident.  The then number two official in America's Tripoli Embassy, Gregory Hicks, said he was stunned when he heard Rice's account.  He claimed that he was later demoted for raising questions about how the incident was handled by the State Department.  That charge was denied by the State Department, which said he was reassigned with no reduction in pay.  Nonetheless, Hicks was not prohibited from speaking to Congress.

There were 64 attacks on American diplomatic targets during President George W. Bush's administration.   American diplomatic facilities have been targets of anti-American sentiment for decades.  In spite of that, Congress has been reducing diplomatic security budgets in recent years.  

Sadly, four Americans died in the attack at Benghazi.  In their memory, and for the sake of all those who serve our country overseas, Congress should now focus its attention on how to better protect our outposts instead of trying to score political points.    









.