nytimes: Republicans Expand I.R.S. Inquiry, With Eye on White House

[spanone]

WASHINGTON — Congressional Republicans, not resting with the Internal Revenue Service scandal, are moving to broaden the matter to an array of tax malfeasances and “intimidation tactics” they hope will ensnare the White House.

Republican charges range from clearly questionable actions to seemingly specious allegations, and they grow by the day. On Friday, lawmakers sought to tie the I.R.S. matter to the carrying out of President Obama’s health care law, which will rely heavily on the agency. Whether they succeed holds significant ramifications for Mr. Obama, who will soon know if he is dealing with a late spring thunderstorm that may soon blow over or a consuming squall that will leave lasting damage.

Representative Dave Camp, Republican of Michigan, the usually mild-mannered chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, set the tone Friday at Congress’s first hearing on the targeting of conservative groups by the I.R.S., laying out details, from the alleged threatening of donors to conservative nonprofit groups to the leaking of confidential I.R.S. documents.

In that context, he said, the screening of Tea Party groups for special scrutiny was not the scandal itself but “just the latest example of a culture of cover-ups — and political intimidation — in this administration.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/us/politics/irs-scandal-congressional-hearings.html?ref=global-home&_r=0&pagewanted=print

[CJCRANE]

1. Well, at least it keeps them occupied.

Otherwise they might have to do something useful.

[spanone]

2. i don't think we have to worry about that

[ProSense]

3. The NYT is complicit

This is the third headline they've attached to this story since this morning, each one gets worse.


Dem Slams GOP Chairman For Linking White House To IRS Scandal
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022857262

[spanone]

5. 'the media' appears complicit. white house emails were altered....

and we get stories like this. it's infuriating.

[dennis4868]

4. The article basically

repeats GOP taking points that are not backed up by any evidence at all. Every time there's evidence that the WH was not involved in the scandal the article somehow turns that into "we'll perhaps Obama was involved because the GOP said so (and doesn't mention there is ZERO evidence of this). People who read the headline will think there may be WH involvement. This sucks!