Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484
The author of the IG Report notes that the IRS staffers who denied a political motivation in their targeting did so not under oath.
i remember him offering that observation
effectively answering a question which had not been posed
which betrayed his objectivity
which may explain why he, in his IG report, characterized the setting aside of applications with politically indicative names as "targeting" which the acting commissioner, miller, did not
and his lean is further demonstrated when the IG was asked if he found any hint of political partisanship in the IRS' employee actions - and he testified - under oath - that no such political partisanship was evident. so, it is difficult for me to then find that "targeting" actually happened
now, back to the matter of the employees not answering the IG's questions under oath. had they not been federal employees, that may have been significant. however, federal employees who lie when asked for a response by a higher graded civil servant are subject to discipline for such lying, which discipline can include termination of employment and referral of the matter to DoJ for prosecution
which then causes me to recognize that the 'not under oath' distinction of the IG was not a significant one. in fact, the IG, while conducting the investigation and questioning the veracity of answers provided by the employees, possessed the authority to then place them under oath and again ask the question. he did not do so, which tells me he accepted the legitimacy of the answers
unfortunately, the D congressmen on the ways and means panel did not have the insight to ask the IG why he opted NOT to place any employee under oath where a concern about the truth existed. another wasted opportunity to expose the IG's bias for public viewing