By 2008, IRS' 40ish Shulman No Longer Considered Himself Much Of A Midwesterner

Mlive.com had the story in 2008, here, capturing the Ohioan's distance from the heartland after years spent at Williams, Harvard and Georgetown, and in New York City:

Shulman, who grew up in Ohio, said Kalamazoo has a "neat downtown. Kalamazoo is a great town," he said. "I like the Midwest. I like down-to-earth people."

IRS' Doug Shulman, Arrogant Prick

IRS' Shulman Visited White House 9 Times In '09 Alone, Everson Once In 5 Years

The former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman is widely reported to have visited the White House well over 100 times after 2008 when he took over the agency, just as the IRS was preparing to target Tea Party groups in earnest.

What's more interesting, however, isn't the aggregate number of visits he made, most of which occurred in the wake of the passage of ObamaCare in 2010 and which are detailed in the logs as health-care related discussions, but that he made so many visits to the White House prior to March 2010.

Earl Glynn here has made an exhaustive study of the White House logs and finds Shulman visited the White House 9 times in 2009 alone.

Shulman's predecessor Mark Everson, by contrast, recalls making just one visit to the White House in the five years between 2003 and 2007, as reported by Susan Ferrechio here:

'The frequent trips to the White House under Obama far outnumbered the times other administrations felt the need to meet with the IRS, according to Mark Everson, who led the IRS under former President George W. Bush. Everson said he remembers making only one trip to the White House between 2003 and 2007 and said he felt like he'd "moved to Siberia" because of the isolation.'

In Shulman's testimony before Congress he has denied discussing targeting of Tea Party groups, but he also testified that he doubted he visited the White House as many times as reported, as recounted here:

He also expressed skepticism that he had visited 118 times.

“I don’t accept the premise that there are 118 visits to the White House,” he objected. “That may or may not be true.”

Yeah right, that's because there were 157 visits, not 118.

The guy's a Slick Willie who absolutely must parse so that if and when we get the goods on the guy at least he'll avoid a perjury charge:

[A]ll of Shulman’s answers were parsed and delivered in practiced legalese.  He almost never answered anything with simple assertions, opting for “recollections” and “as far as I can remembers.”  In his apparent painstaking efforts to avoid making any statement that might ensnare him in a perjury controversy, Shulman seemed unable to cleanly field simple questions about his opinion.  So he hedged and qualified and dissembled — and looked really guilty doing so. 

Hillary, Holder and Shulman: Obama's Know-Nothing Government Zoo?

Hillary Holder and Shulman

Jonathan Turley in The Washington Post, here, warns about the growth of Leviathan, the administrative state, which makes monkeys out of its politically appointed overseers (or does it?):

There were times this past week when it seemed like the 19th-century Know-Nothing Party had returned to Washington. President Obama insisted he knew nothing about major decisions in the State Department, or the Justice Department, or the Internal Revenue Service. The heads of those agencies, in turn, insisted they knew nothing about major decisions by their subordinates. It was as if the government functioned by some hidden hand.

Clearly, there was a degree of willful blindness in these claims. However, the suggestion that someone, even the president, is in control of today’s government may be an illusion. ...

For much of our nation’s history, the federal government was quite small. In 1790, it had just 1,000 nonmilitary workers. In 1962, there were 2,515,000 federal employees. Today, we have 2,840,000 federal workers in 15 departments, 69 agencies and 383 nonmilitary sub-agencies. ...

[T]he Supreme Court ruled in 1984 that agencies are entitled to heavy deference in their interpretations of laws. The court went even further this past week, ruling that agencies should get the same heavy deference in determining their own jurisdictions — a power that was previously believed to rest with Congress. In his dissent in Arlington v. FCC, Chief Justice John Roberts warned: "It would be a bit much to describe the result as ‘the very definition of tyranny,’ but the danger posed by the growing power of the administrative state cannot be dismissed.”

-----------------------------------------------------------

Doesn't this line of argument smell just a little like a pre-emptive defense of the bad monkeys who were actually up to no good? Perhaps a diversionary tactic? Throughout the article, Turley constantly refers to the untouchable agencies as "the fourth branch" of the government. Isn't this a deliberate rhetorical shift? The fourth estate, the press, has been the traditional conception from the time of Carlyle. The fourth branch appears to be a recent innovation, a neologism originating in a leftist critique of the media when captured by the elected, usually Republican, government (as fine a description of the current Obama regime as any, which might be a reason Turley seeks to redeploy the term for what conservatives have long termed the managerial state to keep the focus off the compromised media--it's more prudent for a liberal to change the subject from media complicity when it's media complicity with liberalism we're talking about).

It's also suspicious when liberals start talking like conservatives just when their side starts getting its feet held to the fire. And isn't it also a little rich to hear John Roberts warning about the growing power of the administrative state when on behalf of the third branch of government he basically shoved ObamaCare down the throats of the American people against their will? Or is Leviathan so irresistable that the judiciary follows the legislative in ceding its own power to the faceless bureaucracy?

It would probably behoove the cause of liberty more to forego a special prosecutor in the IRS scandal at this time simply in order to keep televised hearings before the eyeballs of all. Educating the people about the malfeasance of the so-called fourth branch under Obama is job one in order to pierce the fourth estate's media halo around their hero Obama.

IRS Scandal Under Democrat Shulman Is The Bipartisan Gift That Keeps On Giving

Rush Limbaugh, here:

"By the way, everybody is making a big deal out of the fact that Shulman was a Bush appointee. All right, let me deal with that. We must. Yeah, he was a Bush appointee, but he's a Democrat. Douglas Shulman is a Democrat. He gave the Democrat National Committee $250 a month before Bush appointed him to his job. Do you know what Shulman is? Shulman is one of countless Bush appointees who were put there by Bush -- Democrats -- in order to show bipartisanship.

"Remember he had that Florida aftermath -- all this acrimony, hatred and partisanship -- and Bush put a lot of Democrats in positions, and he left a lot of Democrats in positions -- as a show of good faith, in an attempt to show compassionate conservatism, in an attempt to mend fences with the Democrats. It didn't matter. It never will work that way. It never does matter. But that's what Bush was trying to do. Shulman's a Democrat. He's a lifelong Democrat. He's a Democrat partisan."

----------------------------------------------------

President George W. Bush appointed Douglas Shulman to run the IRS in November 2007 as the political wheels were coming off the Bush administration bus after the Democrats took over the US House in the November 2006 elections, and as the economic wheels began coming off the country as the housing bubble popped and banks began to fail in 2007.

Meanwhile we have now learned from Kim Strassel of The Wall Street Journal here that the general counsel of the 2008 Obama campaign and later also the general counsel in the White House, Bob Bauer, was part of a new and broad attempt by Obama's leftists to suppress conservatives precisely on their own nonprofit turf:

'Bob Bauer, general counsel for the campaign (and later general counsel for the White House), on the same day [August 21, 2008] wrote to the criminal division of the Justice Department, demanding an investigation into AIP [American Issues Project], "its officers and directors," and its "anonymous donors." Mr. Bauer claimed that the nonprofit, as a 501(c)(4), was committing a "knowing and willful violation" of election law, and wanted "action to enforce against criminal violations."

'The Bauer onslaught was a big part of a new liberal strategy to thwart the rise of conservative groups. In early August 2008, the New York Times trumpeted the creation of a left-wing group (a 501(c)4) called Accountable America. Founded by Obama supporter and liberal activist Tom Mattzie, the group—as the story explained—would start by sending "warning" letters to 10,000 GOP donors, "hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions." The letters would alert "right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives." As Mr. Mattzie told Mother Jones: "We're going to put them at risk."'

-----------------------------------------------------

Someone at the IRS embarked on the exact same strategy of creating a chilling effect at least from March 2010, perhaps in the wake of Citizens United in January 2010, but the strategy, and the practice, predates it.

How Shulman could not have known about it is hard to believe.