Latest Breaking News

24601

(4,146 posts)

43. It's really that the Treasury Report IG was going to reveal it and she moved to get ahead of the

Sat May 18, 2013, 06:24 PM

May 2013

report. I see no problems, ethically or strategically or whatever, getting bad news on the street before release of the report. She doesn't get "special honesty point"s for releasing information that she knew was going to come out - it's perfectly fine, even smart, to release (unclassified/not protected by Privacy Act*, etc) information that reflects poorly on your organization.

But to then go about it in a way to deceive people about the mechanics of the release creates a brand new ethical lapse - an unforced error that undercuts the President's transparency message. I don't see any legal violation, but the standard has to be higher than "didn't break the law".

* writing this reminded me that I completed my annual Privacy Act training this past week. It's one of about 10 mandatory annual classes.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

48 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Exclusive: Woman Who Asked IRS's Lois Lerner Scandal-Breaking Question Details Plant [View all] notadmblnd May 2013 OP

There's nothing wrong with this. There was something wrong in the IRS. Buzz Clik May 2013 #1

You're right something is wrong in the IRS notadmblnd May 2013 #4

All scandals are politicized. All of them. Buzz Clik May 2013 #5

I know. But the IRS is not supposed to be political notadmblnd May 2013 #7

Seems a little complicated and conspiratorial. Buzz Clik May 2013 #9

And we all know there's no such thing as conspiracies, right? notadmblnd May 2013 #12

Clearly the GOP Congressional delegation conspired to make a big deal out of this. Buzz Clik May 2013 #24

Really? Please point me to the thousands of links about the IRS investigating Doctor_J May 2013 #48

What is wrong with this? timdog44 May 2013 #10

Many of the groups targeted wanted tax exempt status . . . brush May 2013 #44

That is what I thought. timdog44 May 2013 #46

Speaking as a career civil servant, I must disagree that there's nothing wrong with this. At a 24601 May 2013 #22

Just because we do not like what she did and how she did does not make her actions wrong. Buzz Clik May 2013 #25

It's really that the Treasury Report IG was going to reveal it and she moved to get ahead of the 24601 May 2013 #43

What about the requirment that these 501c(4) groups do no political endorsements? brush May 2013 #45

You're wrong brush May 2013 #47

huh? this is just too strange to understand... wtF! explanation?? BREMPRO May 2013 #2

Just remember, there is no such thing as a conspiracy. zeemike May 2013 #3

Correct. timdog44 May 2013 #11

Sniff - Sniff - Sniff Berlum May 2013 #6

Things that make me say........hmmmmmmmm! rdharma May 2013 #8

I've read on Crooks and Liars where Rove said he has gotten about 25 letters from the irs and ignore okaawhatever May 2013 #28

Gee, I visit the Crooks & Liars blog quite often and have seen no such thing........ rdharma May 2013 #33

Here: It's from back in January, I think this is the one. They have been watchiing this way b4 now okaawhatever May 2013 #36

Thanks, but .... there's not any ACTUAL IRS action taken! rdharma May 2013 #39

I never said an audit took place, just that crossroads had received letters from the irs probably okaawhatever May 2013 #41

I don't know how you can "ignore" a letter requesting additional information from the IRS. eom rdharma May 2013 #42

She just happens to be out of the country and she has lawyered up too Botany May 2013 #13

Someone here said that she was a Bush appointee notadmblnd May 2013 #14

I don't know if the President appoints people @ her level to the IRS but the .... Botany May 2013 #18

No, Bush did not appoint her. Bush appointed the guy that selected her for that position notadmblnd May 2013 #27

She is a Bush appointee mainer May 2013 #19

I'm the one that said that based on an article I read early on. It said the position was new I okaawhatever May 2013 #38

I've read she's a dem, but alot of that was old info. She is a civil servant and had been with two okaawhatever May 2013 #29

The U.S. has got to be . . . FairWinds May 2013 #15

Sheldon Adelman DallasNE May 2013 #17

Adelmam made enough money in the us to pay for those election dollars BUT I say that because he has okaawhatever May 2013 #30

What Is The Timeline On Events Here DallasNE May 2013 #16

Instead of dredging up scandal, why wasn't she fixing things? mainer May 2013 #20

I disagree with the clause "the agency was inappropriately targeting conservative groups." John1956PA May 2013 #21

That is what I'm saying. John2 May 2013 #26

You and I agree 100%. As an aside, here is my LTTE of yesterday to a local newspaper. John1956PA May 2013 #31

Let me get this straight... ewagner May 2013 #23

501(c)(4)s cynzke May 2013 #34

I agree with your analysis that the IRS "took the expedient route focusing on names." John1956PA May 2013 #37

Part of the problem we have with this is the bogus hearings in congress. Their questions are very okaawhatever May 2013 #32

And what is that "predictable outcome"? eom rdharma May 2013 #35

Lois Lerner snitched on herself marshall May 2013 #40