>The sad thing is that if they have 100% evidence that Obama instructed this, nothing would happen and the left wouldn't care. Scoreboard, baby.

There's no question that Obama's public anger over the Citizens United decision played a key role in the events. He was also livid over the Tea Party's role in the 2010 mid-terms that led to the Ds losing the House.

Here are three key data points:

1) IRS Chief Counsel William Wilkins met with Obama in the White House, just two days before he (Wilkins) instructed Lois Lerner to create a new channel of review for all 290+ conservative/tea party applications. Wilkins is an Obama appointee who provided a legal defense for Jeremiah Wright back in 2008, on the issue of whether Wright violated his church's non-profit status by speaking in favor of Obama.

2) Lois Lerner refused to testify in front of Congress, repeatedly invoking the Fifth (even though arguably she might have violated the Constitutional Rights of the committee by not giving them a chance to cross-examine her claim under oath that she'd done nothing wrong). But all along, her lawyer acknowledged that she'd been talking to the DOJ. So why would she not be fearful of the very body that could prosecute her? Because emails released about 2 months ago showed that she had been feeding the DOJ information about tea party activity that she obtained during the scrutiny of tax exempt organizations. That's why she's not afraid of them. (She was also working with the office of Elijah Cummings on certain Tea Party groups). This validates the contempt charge from the House.

3) The IRS has been sued in Federal Court by law firms representing targeted groups. The groups have produced documentation that the IRS defended additional targeting because the groups had political views that weren't in line with the current administration. The IRS tied but failed to have some of the cases dismissed. What concerns me is how much the administration might threaten these judges (given how much they've been losing in court these days)