« McCain would sneak us into another war | my two cents on a couple from Planet Money » |
a liar in the white house?
The recent news has been all atwitter about how an IRS office in Cincinnati, Ohio has been found to have targeted certain organizations with special attention. As far as I'm concerned, any attention by the IRS is unwanted, so I can certainly understand how such targeted groups may feel about such special treatment.
But that's not what this post is about.
The LA Times has this account of who knew what when:
White House aides had maintained for days that they knew nothing of the matter until the week of April 22, when the Treasury Department informed White House Counsel Kathy Ruemmler that a report was coming, and that they were not informed of what would be in the report. Carney said last week that Ruemmler’s office was only told that the IG was finishing a review about matters involving the office in Cincinnati. “That’s all they were informed as a normal sort of heads-up,” he said.
Obama political advisor Dan Pfeiffer echoed the assertion during a CBS interview on Sunday, saying the White House was aware of the report but “not the details of what happened, not the results of the investigation, but that an independent investigation was about to conclude."
Following a report to the contrary in Monday editions of the Wall Street Journal, Carney acknowledged that Ruemmler knew on April 24 that findings probably included evidence that the IRS had targeted conservative groups. Ruemmler then informed Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and other members of the senior staff, Carney said. He said there were subsequent communications between Ruemmler’s and McDonough’s offices with their counterparts at Treasury to talk about the timing of the release and potential findings of the report.
They claimed to have known "nothing of the matter", and we should just leave it at that they own up to the truth when they are called on it? The NYT characterizes this difference as going "beyond", in the sense of adding detail
The details released by Mr. Carney on Monday went beyond a previous White House account, and may provide additional fodder for critics pressing to understand what and when the president and his team knew about the I.R.S. misconduct. During a series of television interviews on Sunday, Dan Pfeiffer, the president’s senior adviser, made no mention that Mr. McDonough or others had been notified and said that the White House had “no idea what the facts were” when Ms. Ruemmler was informed.
Was there no one in the press corp to ask a simple question, such as "why were you lying to us before now?" or "why should we believe any other statement you might make?"
1 comment
I’m not usually partisan in my criticism - there’s plenty to find fault in both D’s and R’s in congress and the administration. What seems particularly galling about this story is how the press seems to show no interest to ask the pointed questions that this sequence of events demands be asked of our political leaders.
But it is only the obviousness of the situation. The Washington press corp is itself corrupted by the access and personal satisfaction of being so close to power.
Perhaps I am simply cynical - hence the pessimism tag to this post.