Nothing. He was a temp. He came in after the scandal and was scheduled to step down in June. The odds on him knowing anything useful are somewhere between slim and none, so he has nothing to keep his mouth shut about.
Originally Posted by Rockntractor
Axelrod has no legal authority within the administration. Even if it was his idea, it was the elected officials and their subordinates in the civil service who acted on it, and they are the ones who must be held accountable.
Originally Posted by Adam Wood
This is where the scandal will grow legs. First, we know that this came from much higher up in the IRS, and it wasn't just one office doing the scrutiny. The persons responsible are going to face jail time, unless Holder pulls the ultimate obstruction and stonewalls the investigation, but the moment that he orders an FBI agent to stand down, he's put himself at real risk. And, since Holder just screwed over the AP, he cannot count on the same level of press protection that he's gotten used to. A lot of the media feel betrayed by him, and they will not cut him the same slack that they used to.
Originally Posted by Rockntractor
Now, given the sheer volume of scandals, it would be surprising if there were not some fallout within the administration, but impeachment of Obama is probably a bridge too far. What we should expect is for those senate Democrats who were clamoring for increased IRS scrutiny of conservative groups to have their words come back to haunt them in the midterm elections. Chuck Schumer even went so far as to send a letter to the IRS last year, demanding it, and it was cosigned by Senators Michael Bennet, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Tom Udall, Jeanne Shaheen and Al Franken. The money line is this one:
“We urge the IRS to take these steps immediately to prevent abuse of the tax code by political groups focused on federal election activities. But if the IRS is unable to issue administrative guidance in this area then we plan to introduce legislation to accomplish these important changes.”
Max Baucus sent his own letter to the IRS, demanding the same thing, but signed it as Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which added more emphasis to his request. He is now among those most "outraged" by the attacks (he was also one of the architects of Obamacare, but now sees it as a "train wreck"). Baucus has announced that he will hold hearings on this. Here's the full text of his letter:
September 28, 2010
The Honorable Douglas H. Shulman
Internal Revenue Service
1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20224
Via Electronic Transmission
Dear Commissioner Shulman:
The Senate Finance Committee has jurisdiction over revenue matters, and the Committee is responsible for conducting oversight of the administration of the federal tax system, including matters involving tax-exempt organizations. The Committee has focused extensively over the past decade on whether tax–exempt groups have been used for lobbying or other financial or political gain.
The central question examined by the Committee has been whether certain charitable or social welfare organizations qualify for the tax-exempt status provided under the Internal Revenue Code.
Recent media reports on various 501(c)(4) organizations engaged in political activity have raised serious questions about whether such organizations are operating in compliance with the Internal Revenue Code.
The law requires that political campaign activity by a 501(c)(4), (c)(5) or (c)(6) entity must not be the primary purpose of the organization.
If it is determined the primary purpose of the 501(c)(4), (c)(5) and (c)(6) organization is political campaign activity the tax exemption for that nonprofit can be terminated.
Even if political campaign activity is not the primary purpose of a 501(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) organization, it must notify its members of the portion of dues paid due to political activity or pay a proxy tax under Section 6033(e).
Also, tax-exempt organizations and their donors must not engage in private inurement or excess benefit transactions. These rules prevent private individuals or groups from using tax-exempt organizations to benefit their private interests or to profit from the tax-exempt organization’s activities.
A September 23 New York Times article entitled “Hidden Under a Tax-Exempt Cloak, Private Dollars Flow” described the activities of the organization Americans for Job Security. An Alaska Public Office Commission investigation revealed that AJS, organized as an entity to promote social welfare under 501(c)(6), fought development in Alaska at the behest of a “local financier who paid for most of the referendum campaign.” The Commission report said that “Americans for Job Security has no other purpose other than to cover money trails all over the country.” The article also noted that “membership dues and assessments ... plunged to zero before rising to $12.2 million for the presidential race.”
A September 16 Time Magazine article examined the activities of Washington D.C. based 501(c)(4) groups planning a “$300 million … spending blitz” in the 2010 elections. The article describes a group transforming itself into a nonprofit under 501(c)(4) of the tax code, ensuring that they would not have to “publically disclose any information about its donors.”
These media reports raise a basic question: Is the tax code being used to eliminate transparency in the funding of our elections – elections that are the constitutional bedrock of our democracy? They also raise concerns about whether the tax benefits of nonprofits are being used to advance private interests.
With hundreds of millions of dollars being spent in election contests by tax-exempt entities, it is time to take a fresh look at current practices and how they comport with the Internal Revenue Code’s rules for nonprofits.
I request that you and your agency survey major 501(c)(4), (c)(5) and (c)(6) organizations involved in political campaign activity to examine whether they are operated for the organization’s intended tax exempt purpose and to ensure that political campaign activity is not the organization’s primary activity. Specifically you should examine if these political activities reach a primary purpose level – the standard imposed by the federal tax code – and if they do not, whether the organization is complying with the notice or proxy tax requirements of Section 6033(e). I also request that you or your agency survey major 501(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) organizations to determine whether they are acting as conduits for major donors advancing their own private interests regarding legislation or political campaigns, or are providing major donors with excess benefits.
Possible violation of tax laws should be identified as you conduct this study.
Please report back to the Finance Committee as soon as possible with your findings and recommended actions regarding this matter.
Based on your report I plan to ask the Committee to open its own investigation and/or to take appropriate legislative action.
The first order of business for Republicans on the committee should be to read his letter into the record and demand to know why he cited two examples of conservative groups, based on reports by liberal media outlets, and if it was his intent to use the tax code to suppress political dissent from his opposition. If this was not the case, why did he not cite evidence of leftwing groups which were engaged in far more pervasive violations of the tax code? Did the IRS present a report to him as directed by his letter? What were the contents of that report? If Baucus doesn't recuse himself, then he has a huge conflict of interest.