1) Why didn’t you mention IRS officials were trained to flag progressive groups?
This is perhaps the top question on the minds of many Democrats who were incensed that George’s report didn’t include mention of a July 28, 2010, meeting in which IRS employees were instructed to keep an eye out for liberal groups — not just conservatives — applying for tax exemptions.
Complete with a PowerPoint that included a photo of a donkey and an elephant under the subhead “politics,” the newly uncovered training session slides told employees to flag “tea party,” “patriots,” and “9/12 Project” as well as “progressive.”
A spokesperson for George declined to comment for this story.
But don’t expect much hand-wringing from the inspector general, who has essentially pleaded ignorance about the training to lawmakers.
“Mr. George’s office suggested recently that the office may not have been aware of these documents when they prepared the report, provided testimony before Congress, and sent letters to members,” Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on Oversight, recently wrote to committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).
2) Why did you fail to mention be-on the-lookout lists aimed at liberal groups?
Then there are questions about BOLOs that called on IRS employees to watch for “progressive” groups.
In early testimony, George never mentioned any BOLOs for left-leaning groups, which included instructions for IRS employees to flag applications that reference Occupy Wall Street or mention the “99 percent,” “blue” or include activities that “appear anti-Republican.”
Karen Kraushaar, a spokeswoman for George, previously said the inspector general doesn’t expand the scope of audits requested by Congress. Issa is the lawmaker who asked George to initiate the probe.
On Thursday, Kraushaar added: “[Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration] thoroughly reviews all allegations of waste, fraud and abuse.”
Oversight Democrat Gerry Connolly of Virginia plans to probe George about Issa’s private audit instructions to find out if the inspector general was asked to focus solely on conservative groups and disregard any liberal nonprofits.
“He’s going to have to explain conversations he’s had with the committee that he claimed limited the scope of his audit,” Connolly said. “It’s sort of a nonsensical explanation because does anyone really believe an inspector general of any agency is limited in the scope of an audit by a member of Congress?”
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) said George should have expanded the scope of his audit once he realized liberal groups were also included on the lookout lists.
“That’s not how you do things in government,” she said. “You need to report on the whole picture, not just one.”
Of course, Republicans insist that the instructions to look for left-leaning groups don’t change the overall narrative that conservative groups were subjected to unnecessary delays and scrutiny. And no evidence has emerged to suggest that there was a widespread practice of asking liberals for the type of detailed information, like donor lists or meeting minutes, that the IRS sought from organizations aligned with the tea party.
3) What about the separate probe?
Democrats have criticized George for failing to inform Congress that in addition to his famous audit, a separate group of TIGTA investigators examined 5,500 IRS employee emails and found no evidence that political bias motivated the scrutiny of tea party groups.
Fueling Democrats’ anger even further, Cummings has alleged that the review of the emails was “scrubbed from an earlier draft” of the TIGTA audit.
“It is a huge omission on TIGTA’s part,” a Democratic aide said. “Had that been included in the audit, it would have changed the whole tenor of [the] issue to begin with and subsequent investigations.”
George has insisted during previous hearings that he conducted a limited audit at the request of a lawmaker — Issa — and wasn’t leading a broad investigation.
And even if the emails weren’t included in the report, George has repeatedly said during congressional hearings that he found no evidence of political bias at the IRS.
He’ll most likely have to say the same thing on Thursday.
4) Why did you recently intervene to withhold IRS documents from Congress?
Last week, IRS employees were prepared to turn over another batch of new documents to Oversight staffers, but George “personally” intervened, according to the letter Cummings sent to Issa.
Now Democrats are wondering if he’s covering up something.
The law bans the IRS from sharing details with anyone — including most members of Congress — that might reveal sensitive taxpayer information. Since May, the IRS produced hundreds of thousands of documents for the panel and simply redacted personally identifiable taxpayer information.
George raised eyebrows when he said the information IRS planned to share with the committee crossed the legal line. Cummings questioned if George could be “prevent[ing] the disclosure of relevant information that could raise further questions about the reliability of his report and testimony.”
Michigan Rep. Sander Levin, the top Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, said Wednesday that it is “imperative that the inspector general operate in a nonpartisan manner and be completely forthcoming with the Congress and the American people.”
On Thursday, George could simply retort that he’s trying to enforce the law and protect Americans’ private information — which the public is even more sensitive about in the scandal’s aftermath.
5) Can we trust you?
“People are going to be looking for clues as to [George’s] capacity for objectivity, which has been very badly damaged,” Connolly said. “Why should we trust anything you say?”
Democrats privately have raised questions about $2,800 worth of campaign contributions George made to Republicans before he took his inspector post, suggesting he could have a political agenda.
The inspector general’s office has previously said it stands by its audit and that any suggestions of a bias from George is unfounded.
Cummings, for his part, said he isn’t ready to vilify George.
“One thing I’m not going to do is prejudge him, and that’s one of the reasons I wanted him to have an opportunity to come in and clarify certain things that we need to know,” he said.
Originally Posted by playwrite
Oh yea, field people checking in with Legal back at HQ. Wow, like that never happens.
