I am still not convinced it was only conservative groups that were singled out - that this was as political as the Republicans want it to be; please don't take that to mean I think what the IRS did was okay, because I don't.

I haven't figured out the rest of it, but I would hate to think we're going to spend the summer "investigating" this only to find out that some low-level staffer got delusions of grandeur and dreamed up a plan to make life difficult for tea-party groups and threw in a few progressive ones for show.

One of the things I'd like to see some investigating of - I have a long list, actually - is the administration's concerted effort to control the media, to the point where they are indicting people and looking to put them in prison.  

jbindc: "And yep - the same Glenn Kessler who rightfully called out the talking points on the so-called 'doctored' emails.  When you are losing the argument, smear the other guy."

... misleading ABC News report to "imprecise wordsmithing or editing errors by journalists."

(And my bad -- Kessler gave his "three Pinocchios" to White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer, and not Jay Carney, as I originally wrote.)

Jonathan Karl clearly and unambiguously stated in his report, "White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department." However, the plain truth is that not only had neither Karl nor his bosses even laid eyes on those e-mails, they had in fact been given only a supposed "summary" by either a GOP congressman or staffer, which they failed to disclose in that report. Further, Karl placed the false text in quotation marks, which clearly implies that the text was a verbatim quote. So, it wasn't "so-called 'doctored' e-mails." With this attempt to pass off someone's misleading summary as a verbatim quote, they were effectively doctored.

That, jb, was no mistake, no "imprecise wordsmithing" or "editing error" as Kessler implies here. Because if it was, then Karl's entire report was the sort of amateurish and sloppy journalism which wouldn't even pass muster with most high school newswriting teachers, let alone a producer or editor at a major network news bureau.

Rather, ABC News' "exclusive" report was so wildly off-base in its factual assertions regarding the content of those White House e-mails, that this report signifies a deliberate intent on the part of House Republicans -- given ABC's subsequent admission that yes, it was a congressional source that was communicating with Karl -- to mislead the public about the true nature of those ongoing discussions at the White House last September. Karl and ABC News got caught with their pants down when, to their surprise and chagrin, the White House actually released all those e-mails.

While still nominally standing by the substance of Karl's report, ABC News has since acknowledged that "[t]here were differences between ABC News' original reporting on an email by Ben Rhodes, below, and the actual wording of that email which have now been corrected. ABC News should have been more precise in its sourcing of those quotes, attributing them to handwritten copies of the emails taken by a Congressional source. We regret that error." Emphasis is mine.)

And meanwhile, WaPo's resident punditocracy will once again wonder aloud why so many people across the country are losing faith in D.C.'s increasingly incestuous brand of cross-pollinating journalism.

"Three Pinocchios," indeed. If anyone here deserves the lion's share of Pinocchios, it's first Jonathan Karl for his role as the sorry-a$$ed stenographer to the House GOP, and then Glenn Kessler for his own rather strenuous efforts to provide cover for Karl's sorry a$$.

I stand by what I said. Kessler has no professional credibility, and judging by his most recent round of professional relativism, I'd offer that he also lacks a moral compass.

If so, I'm sure we'd all like to take a look at it.

Try looking up IRS Form 14449, and see if you have enough information to establish that OFA should not have tax-exempt status.

OFA passed muster.  These Tea Party groups are different only in being much smaller and not Obama cheerleaders and not setup by the DNC.

So you've reviewed the applications of these groups along with OFA's application and determined the only difference is the size and the political orientation?

No I would say that progressive group were likely targeted as well, but only after it was determined that criteria being used was not appropriate, which occurred in July 2011.

I don't know that that information is out there, but I think it's important to acknowledge that not all the organizations the IRS was seeking information from were specifically targeted; emphasis on the targeting is leaving the impression that that's the only kind of selection the IRS was engaged in.

The general rule is that a witness can't testify about her version of the facts and then invoke the Fifth Amendment when facing cross examination. Here's what the Court said in Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314, 321(1999):

It is well established that a witness, in a single proceeding, may not testify voluntarily about a subject and then invoke the privilege against self-incrimination when questioned about the details. See Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367, 373 (1951). The privilege is waived for the matters to which the witness testifies, and the scope of the "waiver is determined by the scope of relevant cross-examination," Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148, 154--155 (1958). "The witness himself, certainly if he is a party, determines the area of disclosure and therefore of inquiry," id., at 155. Nice questions will arise, of course, about the extent of the initial testimony and whether the ensuing questions are comprehended within its scope, but for now it suffices to note the general rule.

The tricky part is how to characterize Lerner's testimony before she invoked the Fifth Amendment. On one hand, if you say that Lerner merely expressed her view that she is innocent but did not actually testify as to any facts, then you could say she did not waive her rights with her statement. Questioning would not be about the details of facts she already testified to, but rather would require her testimony on a subject she declined to testify about. On the other hand, if you say that Lerner's reciting the allegations and then denying them effectively testified about the allegations, then you could say that she did testify and did waive her rights. From that perspective, she already testified about "the subject" by saying that she did not violate any IRS rules or submit false testimony, and further questioning would be about the details of why she thinks that.

That, as you know, was my point.

Yet instead of agreeing that we now see the start of it you act ignornant and then worry about my s[pelling.......

Typical reaction from people who don't want to discuss

That, as you know, was my point.

Yet instead of agreeing that we now see the start of it you act ignornant and then worry about my s[pelling.......

Typical reaction from people who don't want to discuss