In a complete contradiction of earlier employee testimony, a self-described conservative Republican employed as a manager at the Internal Revenue Service Cincinnati office told congressional investigators that he, and not the White House, set in motion the review, said the top Democrat on the House watchdog committee.
Rep. Elijah Cummings D-MD., released a partial transcript of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform interview with the unnamed manager in the IRS’ Cincinnati office. During the interview, the employee said the extra scrutiny for Tea Party groups’ tax exempt status was an effort to be consistent in reviewing applications and was not driven by politics. Cummings said:
He is a conservative Republican working for the IRS. I think this interview and these statements go a long way to what’s showing that the White House was not involved in this. Based upon everything I’ve seen, the case is solved.
In the five-hour long interview conducted some point conveniently last week, the manager said one of his employees brought to him a Tea Party group’s application for tax exempt status. The manager said he recognized the political implications of the decision and flagged it for an office in Washington. Some Republicans have suggested that the Washington office initiated the close examination.
Commentary from the Blogger
Well, this is certainly convenient and quite frankly smells rotten. There are several problems with this story, which appears to be fabricated.
- If this was the case, then why did it take so long to air it out.
- Conveniently, the gentlemen is “self-described” conservative Republican
- The testimony is completely at odds with the lower-level employees and others in the congressional investigation
It appears that Chairman Issa R-CA, is not buying this story either. In a statement released yesterday, he said:
The American public wants to know why targeting occurred and who was involved. The testimony excerpts Ranking Member Cummings revealed today did not provide anything enlightening or contradict other witness accounts.