At least the Obama administration was transparent about this whole IRS thing.

They admitted it . . . except, they had to, because a report was coming out.

They said it was just local Cincinnati people who did it . . . except, it was Washington people too.

They said there was no political agenda . . . except, they leaked tax information about conservative groups to a liberal media outlet.

They said it was just low level people who were involved . . . except, top officials knew about it in 2011.

And now, we learn:

They said it was just 300 groups . . . except, it was maybe more like 471.

Well, they’re bad at math, dontcha know.

Well, at least they’re being transparent. Nobody has been fired or disciplined, but at least one person has been promoted.

Yup, they’re transparent. Transparent liars and thugs.

The Weekly Standard quotes Carney:

Other than press reports, we have no knowledge of any attempt by the Justice Department to seek phone records of the AP. We are not involved in decisions made in connection with criminal investigations, as those matters are handled independently by the Justice Department. Any questions about an ongoing criminal investigation should be directed to the Department of Justice.

My, they’re learning quite a few things about the operations of their administration lately in the papers, aren’t they?

P.S. Unlike the lying and thuggish cover-up over Benghazi, or the selective IRS harassment and leaking, or Kathleen Sebelius’s extortion of the health care industry, I’m not quite ready to be outraged about the AP subpoenas. They were investigating a leak of classified information to reporters. I think they’re entitled to do that. I have seen people on Twitter claiming there was wiretapping going on, but I haven’t seen evidence of that in any credible news story. DoJ is entitled to investigate leaks. They’re not supposed to leap to getting records on journalists, but if that’s the only way to get the records, then that’s what you have to do.

There are two parts of this story that concern me. Read this:

The May 7, 2012, AP story that disclosed details of the CIA operation in Yemen to stop an airliner bomb plot occurred around the one-year anniversary of the May 2, 2011, killing of Osama bin Laden.

The plot was significant both because of its seriousness and also because the White House previously had told the public it had “no credible information that terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda, are plotting attacks in the U.S. to coincide with the (May 2) anniversary of bin Laden’s death.”

The AP delayed reporting the story at the request of government officials who said it would jeopardize national security. Once officials said those concerns were allayed, the AP disclosed the plot, though the Obama administration continued to request that the story be held until the administration could make an official announcement.

My two points of concern are:

1) Were they pushing hard on this leak because it undercut their public statements about the lack of evidence of an anniversary plot?

2) Are they retaliating against the AP for insisting on publishing the story once any national security concerns were “allayed”?

Note well, by the way: according to the linked story, “[r]ules published by the Justice Department require that subpoenas of records of news organizations must be personally approved by the attorney general.” In other words, the AP records grab was supposed to be (and probably was) approved by Eric Holder. Yet Obama and Carney got blindsided!!

. . . so they say.

Barack Obama at his presser, on Benghazi: “The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.” The “FactChecker” at the Washington Post, Glenn Kessler, has actually been OK on the Benghazi issue, for whatever reason, and gives Obama four Pinocchios for this one.

Obama did use the phrase “no act of terror” [will go unpunished or similar words] several times after Benghazi. Kessler asks, is it splitting hairs to note that he didn’t say “terrorism”? It almost could seem that way, except for the fact that Obama agreed, on video, that he was specifically avoiding using the word terrorism. Behold:

KROFT: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.”

OBAMA: “Right.”

KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”

OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”

ASIDE: Of course, as we now know, “these folks” meant “the people who made that YouTube video.” We know that Hillary told the family member of a victim, not that they pledged to get the terrorists, but that they pledged to get the maker of the video.

ANOTHER ASIDE: The FactChecker says: “For unknown reasons, CBS did not release this clip until just two days before the elections, and it attracted little notice at the time because Superstorm Sandy dominated the news.” Yeah? Is it really that unknown? They had video evidence that undercut a central argument Obama was making about a hot issue related to the election, and they just happened to bury it, and we are to consider that a mystery? OK then.

ASIDES ARE NOW DONE.

So anyway, Obama is just lying. Again. Nice to see someone prominent calling him out.