First Ms. Strassel:
Was the White House involved in the IRS's targeting of conservatives? No investigation needed to answer that one. Of course it was.She then goes on to discuss the case of Frank Van Der Sloot
President Obama and Co. are in full deniability mode, noting that the IRS is an "independent" agency and that they knew nothing about its abuse. The media and Congress are sleuthing for some hint that Mr. Obama picked up the phone and sicced the tax dogs on his enemies.
But that's not how things work in post-Watergate Washington. Mr. Obama didn't need to pick up the phone. All he needed to do was exactly what he did do, in full view, for three years: Publicly suggest that conservative political groups were engaged in nefarious deeds; publicly call out by name political opponents whom he'd like to see harassed; and publicly have his party pressure the IRS to take action.
"He put a target on our backs, and he's now going to blame the people who are shooting at us?" asks Idaho businessman and longtime Republican donor Frank VanderSloot.
Mr. VanderSloot is the Obama target who in 2011 made a sizable donation to a group supporting Mitt Romney. In April 2012, an Obama campaign website named and slurred eight Romney donors. It tarred Mr. VanderSloot as a "wealthy individual" with a "less-than-reputable record." Other donors were described as having been "on the wrong side of the law."
This was the Obama version of the phone call—put out to every government investigator (and liberal activist) in the land.
Twelve days later, a man working for a political opposition-research firm called an Idaho courthouse for Mr. VanderSloot's divorce records. In June, the IRS informed Mr. VanderSloot and his wife of an audit of two years of their taxes. In July, the Department of Labor informed him of an audit of the guest workers on his Idaho cattle ranch. In September, the IRS informed him of a second audit, of one of his businesses. Mr. VanderSloot, who had never been audited before, was subject to three in the four months after Mr. Obama teed him up for such scrutiny.
Ms Noonan puts it this way:
The president, as usual, acts as if all of this is totally unconnected to him. He's shocked, it's unacceptable, he'll get to the bottom of it. He read about it in the papers, just like youBoth of them mention the case of Frank Vad Der Sloot but do not mention the incident involving Mr. Van Der Sloot and Mother Jones Magazine that I posted about here.
But he is not unconnected, he is not a bystander. This is his administration. Those are his executive agencies. He runs the IRS and the Justice Department.
A president sets a mood, a tone. He establishes an atmosphere. If he is arrogant, arrogance spreads. If he is to too partisan, too disrespecting of political adversaries, that spreads too. Presidents always undo themselves and then blame it on the third guy in the last row in the sleepy agency across town.
That the IRS, an opposition research firm, and Mother Jones "put a target on the back" of Mr. Van Der Sloot while the IRS decided not to release information it had regarding the targeting of individuals and organizations that politically opposed the President all at around the same time might be a total coincidence, it is indicative of the Cororate identity of those who agree politically with the President.
It remains to be see whether any of these actions came about as a result of collusion, or simply because of the Corporate Identity---call it "Culture of Corruption" if you will----created by Obama and the Progressive Extremists who have teken over the Democrat Party.
But it might be useful to know a couple of things.
let's start with:
"What did the President know, and when did he know it?"