Why did Former Head of IRS Visit the White House over 150 times?

Total White House Visits By Former IRS Head Shulman Now at 157 and Climbing

On Wednesday the Daily Caller reported that former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman visited the Obama White House a total of 157 times in the three years and four months beginning September 16, 2009 and ending on January 31, 2013. This represents an increase in the number of reported Shulman visits to the White House by 39 from the 118 visits he made in the two year period beginning in January 2010 and ending in December 2011.

The total number of Obama White House visits made by Mr. Shulman is likely to be greater than the 157 reported by the Daily Caller. The White House has yet to release its visitor log during the eight months beginning on January 20, 2009, when President Obama was inaugurated, and September 16, 2009, when it began publicly reporting visitor access.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/30/Total-White-House-Visits-By-Former-IRS-Head-Shulman-Now-at-157-and-Climbing

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I can see it already, the liberals will come out with,.....  but.. but, but.. he was a Bush appointee.  Then I say, Bush wasn't perfect.  But they wont listen to the part that Shulman did donate to the Democrat party.

 

Mr. Shulman offered little assistance in solving that riddle. "Um, the Easter Egg Roll with my kids," was his first response.

 

To leave a comment, please sign in with
or or

Comments

  1. monkeygirl21

    This is old news, and already has been proven to be false. I will have to find you the link.

    June 22, 2013
    1. Brn2bfree

      It may be old news to you but it has legs… and it has boots.. and one of these days… these boots are going to walk all over this administration. Maybe not now but history will show the truth. Liberals have the attention span of a fruit fly.
      .
      You remind me of this black Demorat Congressman who was saying that the IRS scandal was behind us. BULL SHIT! It’s like a crack in the mirror.. every time you look at yourself you will see that crack .. that crack is your dishonesty… Ms. Monkey

      June 22, 2013
      1. monkeygirl21

        BRN, it has no legs. This was already supposed to be the “smoking gun” weeks ago, until it was proven to be false.

        June 22, 2013
    2. Brn2bfree

      Mr. Robama, What’s false about it? …. the 157 visits ? or that it happened.
      I’m sure you will make some sort of justification for this. You left nuts (who have an asshole for a neighbor) are good at making excuses… Look at Obama and this video thing LMAO!!!

      Come on Rob-allah… give me an excuse why he went there 157 times.. You guys are so full of shit!! Your eyes are brown.

      June 22, 2013
  2. jillsthoughts

    I read he was on the list for the Easter Egg Hunt. That seems suspicious…

    June 22, 2013
    1. Brn2bfree

      Now.. we’re getting somewhere… We’re going nowhere fast….
      .
      That was a lame attempt to cover up what he was really doing there. Right Ms. Jilski?

      June 22, 2013
    2. Brn2bfree

      The White House has yet to release its visitor log during the eight months beginning on January 20, 2009, when President Obama was inaugurated, and September 16, 2009, when it began publicly reporting visitor access.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      Ms. Jill, I’m sure you have an excuse for this as well…eh? Come on .. give it to me baby… lie to me… beat me…. whip me….. just don’t make me write bad checks.

      June 22, 2013
      1. jillsthoughts

        No, you tell ME why he was there. I love your bedtime stories.

        June 22, 2013
      2. jillsthoughts

        http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/06/06/oreilly-spins-a-correction-on-white-house-visits/
        .
        Let’s see how Brn spins this one…

        June 22, 2013
        1. deaconjim

          You think he’ll actually take time to read it?

          June 22, 2013
        2. Brn2bfree

          You guys are trying to do the Clinton thing…. what is is. …lol.
          Making lame excuses again.
          Look, Shulman wasn’t really denying that he was there that many times… he was just making lame excuses as to why he was there…. like all of you are doing.
          .
          The IRS admitted they singled out conservative… now all the pieces are fitting in. Regardless of how you guys try to spin this….that he was there 80 times for this and 20 for that….lol. Are you kidding me? That realy doesn’t matter… just by the admission of the IRS, we can now say…. OIC… that makes sense, that he went there a bunch of times.
          .
          Nice try… you guys are clowns

          June 22, 2013
          1. mrmacq

            " he was just making lame excuses as to why he was there"
            .
            ya mean like doing his job?
            .
            “157 number refers to instances where Shulman was approved to attend a meeting, mostly about the new healthcare law. (Slightly more than half of them, 80, were a regularly scheduled biweekly gathering of deputies working on the healthcare reform project; another 40 were with the director of the Office of Health Reform.) A large majority of the meetings Shulman was cleared to attend, 115 in all, were in the Old (Eisenhower) Executive Office Building, not in the White House itself.

            June 22, 2013
          2. jillsthoughts

            Obviously he didn’t read the link. Thanks, Mac, for offering the information that would set him straight.
            .
            He didn’t target conservatives, he targeted Tea Party organizations that he thought would be illegally using their tax status. He was wrong to do it, but let’s stick with the facts. He should have been doing the same with liberal organizations who might do the same. Oh, wait a minute, there are none.
            .
            As the head of the IRS, he is required to attend meetings with the administration.
            .
            Keep fishing, Brn, you just might pull up a bullhead yet.

            June 22, 2013
            1. mrmacq

              herr brn needs to change his user name
              perhaps
              “i fling poo shewat shtic” might be best?

              June 22, 2013
          3. deaconjim

            So you didn’t check out Jill’s link.

            June 22, 2013
      3. jillsthoughts

        They began this policy in December of 2009, and went back three months. Prior to this, no other president had offered this kind of transparency. And the administration has said it will pull together any other log requests prior to that date. Here is the release:
        .
        Visitor Access Records
        .
        As part of President Obama’s commitment to government transparency, we are providing records of White House visitors on an ongoing basis online. In December 2009, we will begin posting all White House visitor records for the period from September 15th onwards under the terms of our new voluntary disclosure policy. In addition, as part of our new policy, we will post records dating from January 20th that are specifically requested on an ongoing basis. For more information, read the White House blog post announcing the new policy.

        June 22, 2013
  3. geargrinder2012

    Really you got to be kidding?! Brn your making yourself look really foolish with this post….

    June 22, 2013
    1. Brn2bfree

      I think what you said is making a big statement as well… you’re showing your true colors. ..yellow. ..boots.

      June 22, 2013
  4. deaconjim

    Here are the facts:
    -
    1.Shulman was scheduled to attend meetings related to the ACA, according to Jill’s link, about 120 meetings.
    -
    2.Shulman was only CLEARED to enter the White House 157 times, it doesn’t mean he actually showed up.
    -
    3.Records show Shulman signed in as a visitor 11 times.
    -
    4.The IRS asked a few extra questions to Tea Party groups requesting tax-exempt status.
    -
    5.Brn still has not explained how any of this influenced me or anybody else to vote for any Democrat candidates.

    June 22, 2013
    1. Brn2bfree

      The White House has yet to release its visitor log during the eight months beginning on January 20, 2009, when President Obama was inaugurated, and September 16, 2009, when it began publicly reporting visitor access.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      Keep reading this … it might sink in.
      Quit making shit up

      June 22, 2013
      1. deaconjim

        I’ve asked you several times in several threads HOW the IRS influenced the election. You’ve dodged the question. Your deflection skills are as good as any politician. Please, just give us a reasonable explanation as to how the election was rigged by the IRS.

        June 22, 2013
      2. monkeygirl21

        He released these logs long ago. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-10-31/politics/36915968_1_president-obama-obama-white-house-obama-administration

        June 22, 2013
      3. livelonger

        .Shulman was only CLEARED to enter the White House 157 times, it doesn’t mean he actually showed up.
        -
        Records show Shulman signed in as a visitor 11 times."
        .
        That settles the matter.

        June 22, 2013
  5. monkeygirl21

    BRN, they released the log awhile ago………

    June 22, 2013
  6. jillsthoughts

    Let’s review:

    5 Takeaways from the IRS Scandal:
    .
    By RACHAEL BADE | 6/20/13 11:14 PM EDT
    It was such a simple storyline at the beginning: The Internal Revenue Service — one of the most hated Washington agencies — wrongly targeted tea party groups applying for a tax exemption.
    .
    Then Congress got involved.
    .

    Lawmakers have muddied the plot with strategic leaks of interviews conducted by congressional investigators with IRS employees involved in the scandal. The leaked transcripts grab headlines without offering much clarity.
    .
    More than a month after news of the target program surfaced, partisan brinkmanship on Capitol Hill is leaving the public confused about what really happened and who is to blame. (RE: Brn)
    .
    POLITICO reviewed hundreds of pages of transcripts to arrive at these takeaways about what we’ve learned so far about the IRS debacle.
    .
    1. This isn’t Watergate
    .
    Within hours of the IRS acknowledging the targeting practice on May 10, top Republicans immediately compared the activity to the political shenanigans of the Nixon era.
    .
    So far, there’s zero evidence to back up those accusations.
    .
    In fact, front-line employees in the IRS’s Cincinnati field office reject assertions that the White House was involved.
    .
    There was no reason for flagging those cases “other than consistency and identifying issues that needed to have further development,” said John Shafer, the self-described “conservative Republican” manager in Cincinnati who oversaw the screening group that singled out right-leaning groups.
    .
    Shafer told investigators he “had no reason to believe” the White House was involved, nor did he think any of his colleagues targeted groups as a result of political bias.
    .
    The GOP continues to argue that the targeting program is part of a broader effort by the administration to hobble its political enemies. Dick Cheney recently said the practice “was clearly used for political purposes.”
    .

    But even Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, who helped lead the interviews that have surfaced, acknowledge in private that there’s no evidence of political motivation.
    .
    2. It really did start in Cincinnati
    .
    Some in the GOP continue to push back on suggestions that the targeting began anywhere but Washington.
    .
    “It’s clear this didn’t start with a group of ‘rogue agents’ in Cincinnati,” House Speaker John Boehner told CNBC on Thursday.
    .
    But from the evidence that has come to light so far, this doesn’t seem to be a program orchestrated from Washington. Witnesses have testified that Cincinnati IRS employees were the first to pull a conservative group for extra scrutiny.
    .
    Shafer, the IRS manager in Cincinnati, received an email from one of his employees in late February 2010 about a “high-profile” tea party group that had been in the news around that time. The employee flagged the group and said it might need extra scrutiny because it was interested in engaging in politics — actions that are limited by law for groups receiving a 501©(4) tax exemption.
    .
    Shafer agreed, pushing the case up the chain until it eventually wound up at IRS headquarters in Washington.
    .
    After Washington accepted the case, Shafer — on his own initiative — instructed his employees to keep their eyes peeled for similar cases. He told investigators he made that call without any direction from Washington.
    .
    When asked if he had been instructed to conduct more searches following the initial findings, Shafer said no.
    .
    “No one said to make a search,” Shafer said. He simply called his agents and told them “it was something we need to be aware of and we need to hold those cases until we have further direction.”
    .
    3. Washington made things worse
    .
    The targeting may have started in Cincinnati, but IRS officials in Washington failed to blunt what might have been a case of political tone deafness from snowballing into the agency’s worst crisis in years.
    .
    The transcripts paint a picture of an agency headquarters plagued by poor communication and mismanagement once it became aware of — and accepted responsibility for — the flagged tea party cases in early 2010.
    .
    Holly Paz, a former Washington manager in the IRS division with oversight of applications for tax exemptions, told IRS employees in 2010 to “hold” tea party cases they found. Some ended up sitting in limbo for years.
    .
    Paz was removed from her position earlier this month.
    .
    Washington officials were supposed to give Cincinnati screeners a template for approving or denying tea party cases early on, but it took them 13 months to follow through.
    .
    The communication process between Washington and Cincinnati was so “frustrating” that one Ohio employee, Elizabeth Hofacre, told congressional investigators she left her position over it.
    .
    When Washington finally got involved in the process, Hofacre said officials from the agency’s headquarters micromanaged her review of nonprofit applications — ultimately leading to big delays.
    .
    For example, Carter Hull, a Washington-based tax-lawyer working with her on the cases, sent Hofacre templates to use when writing to tea party nonprofit applicants, including questions she should ask about “emails, copies of Web pages, copies of literature from their events … any type of like constrictions or schedules, meet-ups.”
    .
    But later, when Hofacre started receiving answers from some groups, Hull stopped responding to inquiries in a timely fashion — and when she called to inquire about the status of certain groups he simply told her they were “under review.”
    .
    “All I remember saying and thinking is ‘this is ridiculous,’” she told the congressional investigators. “Because at the same time, you are getting calls from irate taxpayers. And I see their point. Even if a decision isn’t favorable, they deserve some kind of … timeliness, and it was just these applications and their responses were just being sent up there and I am not sure what was happening.”
    .
    4. Cincinnati screeners weren’t following consistent standards
    .
    When news about the IRS scandal first unfolded, both parties were appalled to learn that screeners were using terms like “patriot,” “9/12,” “government spending” and “make America a better place to live” in searching for applicants to pull for extra scrutiny.
    .
    As it turns out, those terms were never on the “be-on-the-lookout” list that was meant to flag tea party groups.
    .
    “They were never given criteria,” Shafer said, explaining that each screener was allowed to sift for cases using his or her own standards.
    .
    He said issues like “government debt” and “taxes” were “not something that was distributed to everybody because that’s not the way that we were conducting this. It was not a criteria-based anything.”
    .
    Gary Muthert, a screener who worked for Shafer, told investigators that he expanded his own search terms because he saw some groups didn’t use the word “tea party” in their titles or applications.
    .
    “I used ‘patriots’ because some of the tea parties wouldn’t — they would shorten their name to TP Patriots. I thought, OK, I will use ‘patriot,’ and I would see TP Patriots,” Muthert said. “And the 9/12, when you looked at the website, you would see the — these organizations. So I said, OK, I will use these to find the tea parties.”
    .
    5. Focus centered on conservative, not liberal groups
    .
    From the beginning of the scandal, lawmakers have tried to gauge whether left-leaning groups were given the same sort of scrutiny.
    .
    Most testimony shows they weren’t.
    .
    Although Paz told the Oversight panel that despite the nickname “tea party cases,” IRS employees were instructed to review all political cases, including liberal advocacy groups.
    .
    That runs contrary to what Hofacre — the person actually reviewing the cases — told investigators.
    .
    Hofacre said she “was tasked to do tea parties” only and never once reviewed a left-leaning group.
    And although some screeners sent liberal groups her way, she just “sent those back to the specialists or the general inventory … because my function was to develop tea parties.”
    .
    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/five-takeaways-from-irs-scandal-93145.html#ixzz2WxHdvhhn

    June 22, 2013
    1. jillsthoughts

      So all this took place in Cincinnati, under the direction of a self-described conservative who saw a Tea Party member who had applied for tax exemption doing just exactly what he wasn’t supposed to be doing with that status. A bi-partisan oversight group in Congress has also said this was not politically motivated.
      .
      People like Brn make the Sallem witch hunts look like play time. You keep wanting to pin smething on Obama to impeach him, but there is nothing there so far. Why didn’t you put this much energy into impeaching GWB for lying to us about Iraq and sending thousands of our men and women to that country, with the"lucky to be alive" ones coming back with so many emotional and phsyical scars, we as a society aren’t sure how to help them?

      June 22, 2013
  7. mrmacq

    “they would shorten their name to TP Patriots”
    .
    HAH!
    im sorry but everytime i see this TP (toilet paper) Patrots i have to laugh
    (ranks right up there with teabaggers)
    and then ask myself
    is this before or after the job is done?
    ….sorry…..carry on

    June 22, 2013
    1. livelonger

      Brn does a good job convincing any reasonable voter that he’s a nutcase.

      June 22, 2013
  8. silent_sigh

    Why does 90% of what you post seem to eminate from either Fox News or Breitbart media? Dont you have any nonbiased sources?

    June 23, 2013
    1. livelonger

      The only way Brn would have the drive to continually post his nonsense is to either
      - be paid by Fox, Breitbart, or some political group
      - or have a nutcase streak.
      Few would take a daily bashing as to their sanity on a daily basis without getting a hint.

      June 23, 2013