Associated Press

Rachel noted on the show last night that the controversy surrounding Benghazi effectively "went away" yesterday, and given the latest information, it's hard to imagine how any serious person could disagree.

The White House yesterday afternoon released the inter-agency communications that went into crafting the "talking points" requested by Congress last September. Lawmakers already saw these materials months ago -- they found nothing controversial at the time -- but Republicans and the media decided it was time to see them again.

So, the administration, eager to put the matter to rest, released the documents. In turn, we learned what we already knew: there was no cover-up; State and the CIA engaged in a predictable bureaucratic "tug of war"; and this:

The internal debate did not include political interference from the White House, according to the e-mails, which were provided to congressional intelligence committees several months ago.

And with that, everything Republican conspiracy theorists desperately wanted Americans to believe -- there's a scandal; there's a cover-up; there's evidence the White House manipulated and lied about a crisis for political ends -- suddenly evaporated before our very eyes.

House Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) office issued a statement last night saying the revelations raised more questions. In fact, I have one myself: how is any fair-minded person still expected to take the Republican arguments about this non-scandal seriously?

What's more, note that most sensible people realized the right's conspiracy theories were wrong, which is why the so-called "controversy" was relegated to Republican media, until last Friday's report from ABC News pushed the story into the mainstream. That ABC News report, we now know, was wrong.

There's just nothing left. Trying to characterize this as a genuine political story worthy of attention has been a misguided partisan exercise for months, but now, it's reached the point of ridiculousness. Every reporter saying the White House is engulfed in "three scandals" is misleading the public -- there was a deadly attack against a U.S. diplomatic outpost last year, which left four Americans dead. It was a tragedy; it was not a political controversy.

Put a fork in the Benghazi story; it's done.

President Obama delivered a statement at the White House this afternoon on the IRS controversy. The video is above, but the full transcript is below:

"I just finished speaking with Secretary Lew and senior officials at the Treasury Department to discuss the investigation into IRS personnel who improperly screened conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status. And I look forward to taking some questions at tomorrow's press conference, but today, I wanted to make sure to get out to all of you some information about what we're doing about this, and where we go from here.

"I've reviewed the Treasury Department watchdog's report, and the misconduct that it uncovered is inexcusable. It's inexcusable, and Americans are right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it. I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency, but especially in the IRS, given the power that it has and the reach that it has into all of our lives. And as I said earlier, it should not matter what political stripe you're from -- the fact of the matter is, is that the IRS has to operate with absolute integrity. The government generally has to conduct itself in a way that is true to the public trust. That's especially true for the IRS.

"So here's what we're going to do. First, we're going to hold the responsible parties accountable. Yesterday, I directed Secretary Lew to follow up on the IG audit to see how this happened and who is responsible, and to make sure that we understand all the facts. Today, Secretary Lew took the first step by requesting and accepting the resignation of the acting commissioner of the IRS, because given the controversy surrounding this audit, it's important to institute new leadership that can help restore confidence going forward.

"Second, we're going to put in place new safeguards to make sure this kind of behavior cannot happen again. And I've directed Secretary Lew to ensure the IRS begins implementing the IG's recommendations right away.

"Third, we will work with Congress as it performs its oversight role. And our administration has to make sure that we are working hand in hand with Congress to get this thing fixed. Congress, Democrats and Republicans, owe it to the American people to treat that authority with the responsibility it deserves and in a way that doesn't smack of politics or partisan agendas. Because I think one thing that you've seen is, across the board, everybody believes what happened in -- as reported in the IG report is an outrage. The good news is it's fixable, and it's in everyone's best interest to work together to fix it.

"I'll do everything in my power to make sure nothing like this happens again by holding the responsible parties accountable, by putting in place new checks and new safeguards, and going forward, by making sure that the law is applied as it should be -- in a fair and impartial way. And we're going to have to make sure that the laws are clear so that we can have confidence that they are enforced in a fair and impartial way, and that there's not too much ambiguity surrounding these laws.

"So that's what I expect. That's what the American people deserve. And that's what we're going to do. Thank you very much."

Today's edition of quick hits:

* IRS: "A senior official at the Internal Revenue Service has told congressional investigators that two IRS employees have been disciplined in relation to the special scrutiny applied to conservative groups, Congressional sources told NBC News on Wednesday." [Update: President Obama will deliver a statement on the IRS situation at 6 pm. eastern.] 

* Iraq: "Bomb attacks in Shi'ite areas of Baghdad and in northern Iraq killed more than 35 people on Wednesday, following weeks of violence by Sunni Islamist insurgents determined to unleash sectarian confrontation."

* Obama spoke this morning in honor of fallen law-enforcement officers who died over the last year.

* Austerity is a terrible failure: "Economic output contracted in the euro zone for a sixth-straight quarter, as a slight recovery in Germany failed to offset recessions in France and Italy."

* Syria "The U.N. General Assembly 'strongly' condemned the Syrian government Wednesday for its 'indiscriminate' shelling and bombing of civilians and 'widespread and systematic' human rights violations in a conflict that has dragged on for more than two years and left more than 70,000 people dead."

* More on Syria: "A senior Israeli official signaled on Wednesday that Israel was considering further military strikes on Syria to stop the transfer of advanced weapons to Islamic militants, and he warned the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, that his government would face crippling consequences if it retaliated against Israel."

* Water bill: "The Senate voted 83-14 for a water infrastructure bill on Wednesday, the first such bill the upper chamber has moved since 2007."

* A crisis gets worse: "Ahead of possible major actions from the Pentagon and Congress on sexual assault in the military, the U.S. Army is forced to confront yet another instance of a member of the armed forces involved in a shocking sexual assault scandal."

* Adelson: "A Nevada jury Tuesday returned a $70 million verdict against GOP megadonor Sheldon Adelson's global casino and resort company, Las Vegas Sands, in a high-profile lawsuit over the company's expansion into Macau."

* I lacked the energy to respond to the Politico piece everyone's talking about, but it's genuinely awful and a case study in what's wrong with so much of Beltway reporting. It does suggest, however, that the D.C. media establishment is effectively prepared to go to war with President Obama, in part because it considers him "aloof," and the White House can expect "ruthless" coverage for the indefinite future.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Getty Images

House Republicans are poised to vote once again on repealing the Affordable Care Act -- I'll have more on that in the morning -- and they asked the Congressional Budget Office to score their bill before the vote. The CBO responded with a letter today (pdf), explaining it won't have time to provide House members with these cost estimates.

That the CBO did not say, "It doesn't matter anyway, since this is a ridiculous political exercise, and we have real work to do," I consider a terrific example of professional restraint.

The Congressional Budget Office did, however, note that it already provided a repeal score last year, and those figures can serve as a guide for lawmakers.

In that [2012] letter, CBO indicated that the net savings from eliminating the insurance coverage provisions of the [Affordable Care Act] would be more than offset by the combination of other spending increases and revenue reductions that repeal of the ACA would entail. On balance, CBO and [the Joint Committee on Taxation] estimated, repealing the ACA would affect direct spending and revenues in ways resulting in a net increase in budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013-2022 period.

Right. Republicans say they want to lower the deficit, and they say they want to destroy the Affordable Care Act without replacing it, but they don't realize those two goals are contradictory. If they repeal "Obamacare," they add $109 billion to the deficit in the coming decade.

It's all a partisan charade anyway, so I realize we're well past the point of a mature debate about public policy, but just once I'd like to hear someone ask a House Republican leader, "How do you intend to pay for repealing the health care law?"

Attorney General Eric Holder has faced aggressive questioning in congressional hearings many times, especially from Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) who has accused the nation's chief law-enforcement official of all kinds of misdeeds, but today was the first time I can recall Holder taking offense to unfounded allegations.

At House Judiciary Committee hearing, Issa inquired about communications with Labor Secretary nominee Tom Perez, and stated without proof that the Attorney General was deliberately hiding information from Congress and violating the Federal Records Act.

When Holder tried to respond, Issa tried to cut him off, saying the A.G. didn’t want lawmakers "to see the details." Holder was not pleased with the accusation, or the effort to prevent him from responding.

"No, no, I'm not going to stop talking now," Holder said, adding that Issa's comments were "inappropriate and too consistent with the way in which you conduct yourself as a member of Congress. It is unacceptable [and] it is shameful."

For those who marvel at Issa's everyday brazenness, it was a welcome sight to see someone tell the far-right lawmaker what he hears too infrequently.

* Update: The crosstalk makes it hard to transcribe the video, but I've updated the quotes to make them as accurate as possible.

Getty Images

At a press conference yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder was pressed on the controversy surrounding subpoenas for AP phone logs, and one reporter said, "[I]t leaves us in a position of wondering whether the administration has somehow decided, policy-wise, that it's kind of going after us." Holder said this is "certainly not" the case, and reminded reporters of his and the administration's support for a media shield law.

The proposal "didn't get the necessary support up on the Hill," Holder said, but "it is something this administration still thinks would be appropriate."

Indeed, less than a day later, the White House has taken a renewed interest in the idea.

The Obama administration sought on Wednesday to revive legislation that would provide greater protections to reporters from penalties for refusing to identify confidential sources, and that would enable journalists to ask a federal judge to quash subpoenas for their phone records, a White House official said.

The official said that President Obama's Senate liaison, Ed Pagano, called Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, who is a chief proponent of a so-called media shield law, on Wednesday morning and asked him to reintroduce a bill that he had pushed in 2009.

This has come up before, but Republican opposition killed the bills in 2008 and 2010, with the WikiLeaks story helping derail the latter. [Update: the White House supported the shield law in 2010, but called for significant national-security exceptions. It's unclear which version Schumer has been asked to re-introduce.]

Regardless, given this week's news, the stage is set for an interesting fight. The White House, obviously aware of the AP mess, is effectively saying the administration will continue to act as far as it can within the law, but it also wants to see the law narrowed to prevent future controversies. Or put another way, "Stop us before we subpoena again."

If the shield law passes, this problem largely goes away, and Justice Department subpoenas for news organization's phone records ends. So will it pass?

I found Kevin Drum's take compelling: "Politically, Obama is basically daring Republicans to put their money where their mouths are. You want to make the DOJ leak investigation into an issue of executive overreach? Fine. Then rein it in. Pass a law making it clear what DOJ can and can't do in leak investigations. This is a win-win for me. If Republicans take Obama up on his offer, then we get a law I approve of. If they don't, then they need to shut up. What's not to like?"

Watching House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) make strange comments this morning about the IRS controversy reminded me of something House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told Chris Hayes the other day about the Speaker: "If he were a woman, they'd be calling him the weakest speaker in history." Asked why, Pelosi added, "Because nothing's getting done."

That's true. We've talked on several occasions in recent years about a straightforward thesis: Speaker Boehner is bad at his job. In recent weeks, however, a related-but-different thesis has come into focus: Speaker Boehner is no longer really trying to do his job.

Ask Speaker John Boehner a question on a key issue these days, and you're likely to get a variation of the same response: Talk to someone else.

The Speaker has maintained a lower-key presence in recent months, largely avoiding the spotlight and abandoning the deal-making ambitions of his first two years in office. Whether the matter is immigration, guns, budget talks or online sales taxes, Boehner (R-Ohio) routinely defers or deflects questions to committee leaders.

I'd add one addendum to that last part: ask Boehner about nearly any issue, and if he doesn't refer questions to committee chairs, he'll refer questions to the Senate.

I suppose, in fairness, it's worth emphasizing that it's not necessary to draw a value judgment here. Boehner seems to have deliberately abandoned any hope of leading, legislating, or even influencing the policymaking process, but that's his right. Maybe he likes "leading from behind." Perhaps he's trying out a new model for the Speaker's office -- one in which the leader becomes the bystander, and the Speaker just waits to see how events unfold around him.

Regardless, "worried Republicans" told BuzzFeed last week that Boehner "seems to be missing in action from messaging and legislative battles."

That's partly due to Boehner's inability to lead, and partly due to the fact that House Republicans are deeply divided among themselves. But whatever the cause, Pelosi's assessment seems more than fair.

We've heard quite a bit recently from Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, and Michael Mukasey, so I suppose it stands to reason that it's time for Alberto Gonzales to reemerge, too.

The former attorney general has been wise to keep a low profile. In office, he was a national laughingstock. Upon Gonzales' departure, Andrew Cohen wrote a terrific piece explaining, "By any reasonable standard, the Gonzales Era at the Justice Department is void of almost all redemptive qualities." He sought a legal job in D.C. but couldn't find a firm that would hire him, and the last I heard, Gonzales ended up teaching at an unaccredited law school.

The former A.G. nevertheless appeared on MSNBC this morning, apparently ready to address some of ongoing controversies. He seemed inclined to give the Obama administration the benefit of the doubt when it came to subpoenaing Associated Press phone logs, but this nevertheless stood out for me.

Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales recalled on Wednesday a time when he was confronted with a "very serious leak investigation" similar to the one that has embroiled the Obama administration this week. But, he said, he went a very different route and decided against subpoenaing a reporter's notes.

Attorney General Eric Holder on Tuesday defended the seizure of Associated Press phone records, saying the Department of Justice was trying to get to the bottom of a "very serious leak" that "put American people at risk." Gonzales, who oversaw a massive domestic wiretapping program under former President George W. Bush, acknowledged on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that the attorney general is often forced to "make a very hard determination" but when faced with a similar dilemma, his Justice Department "ultimately decided not to move forward."

Now, I can't be sure which case Gonzales is referring to, but for the record, let's not forget that during his tenure as attorney general, the Justice Department "improperly gained access to reporters' calling records as part of leak investigations." Indeed, it happened quite a bit.

Unlike the current uproar, we didn't hear much about this at the time, but if Gonzales wants to give the impression now that his DOJ showed greater restraint when it came to journalists and phone logs, he's mistaken.

USA Today had an item today on the IRS controversy, which seemed to reinforce much of what we already know: conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status faced unfair and unreasonable scrutiny. But deep in the article, in the 18th paragraph, USA Today added seven unexpected words: "Some liberal groups did get additional scrutiny."

They did? Actually, yes.

The Internal Revenue Service, under pressure after admitting it targeted anti-tax Tea Party groups for scrutiny in recent years, also had its eye on at least three Democratic-leaning organizations seeking nonprofit status.

One of those groups, Emerge America, saw its tax-exempt status denied, forcing it to disclose its donors and pay some taxes. None of the Republican groups have said their applications were rejected.

Progress Texas, another of the organizations, faced the same lines of questioning as the Tea Party groups from the same IRS office that issued letters to the Republican-friendly applicants. A third group, Clean Elections Texas, which supports public funding of campaigns, also received IRS inquiries.

In fact, it's worth emphasizing that the IRS, which has acknowledged making mistakes in this area and offered an awkward apology for agency missteps, noted yesterday that the "organizations of all political views" were affected by the scrutiny.

This certainly seems relevant to the larger controversy, doesn't it? Up until now, the story has been pretty straightforward: conservative groups were subjected to unfair treatment when applying for tax-exempt 501(c)4 status. The IRS must remain politically neutral at all times and the right was fully justified in complaining that the agency fell far short of this standard.

But if several liberal groups were subjected to the same treatment, it reinforces a larger, less-partisan arc to the story: the IRS struggled to enforce ambiguous tax laws and was beset by bureaucratic bungling. The ratios certainly matter -- if only a handful of left-leaning groups faced tough scrutiny, while right-wing leaning groups fared far worse, that would point to a more systemic problem -- but we don't yet know that for sure.

It would appear, then, that what's needed is a detailed accounting. The inspector general's report filled in many of the blanks, and I suspect we'll get a more thorough examination with the FBI looking into the case and congressional hearings on the way.

Associated Press

In theory, when an administration is facing a series of controversies, the political fallout carries consequences -- a president's policy agenda, for example, can be derailed by scandals as the media shifts its attention, allies put some distance between themselves and the administration, and foes push policy proposals to the backburner to make room for hearings and investigations.

The ongoing uproar surrounding the Obama administration, however, is a little different. For one thing, Congress was already largely ignoring President Obama's proposals, and it's a short walk from being indifferent towards an agenda to ignoring it altogether. For another, for all the talk about a White House "in crisis," none of the current controversies seem to directly relate to President Obama or anyone else in the White House.

And so, though much of the political world seems to have its hair on fire, things really aren't that different than they were a week ago (or a month ago, or two months ago).

As she headed into meetings on Tuesday, Maine Sen. Susan Collins was talking to reporters about the possibility of a grand bargain on entitlement spending, something to replace sequestration cuts. I asked whether the new scandals would up-end that.

"I do not believe that the IRS scandal," said Collins, "serious and troubling though it is, will forestall negotiations on the budget and immigration and other issues."

Roll Call added that the recent uproar "could have many consequences for a White House on the defensive -- but imperiling a comprehensive immigration overhaul likely isn't one of them." BuzzFeed reported that immigration reform is probably even more likely now since opponents are focused on perceived scandals, not destroying the legislation.

Even Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), hardly a White House ally, said there's no reason to believe immigration reform will be derailed. "When Iran–Contra was going on, President Reagan was still able to work with Congress," McCain told reporters yesterday. "Legislation was passed, et cetera." That scandal captivated Washington and the world, and "everyone thought that it would damage President Reagan, but it didn't."

A month ago, assorted right-wing lawmakers wanted Obama impeached; Beltway pundits were annoyed by the president's indifference to their advice; Republicans wanted more spending cuts; much of the GOP assumed there'd been a Benghazi cover-up; and a bipartisan group of lawmakers were optimistic they could pass comprehensive immigration reform, while far-right lawmakers held out hope of killing the bill.

A month later, conditions may seem different, but are they? I guess Obama will take a hit in the polls, and the recent uproar might affect the 2014 midterms, but if there's a seismic shift caused by "scandals," it's hiding well.

Yesterday's news from the Congressional Budget Office on the shrinking deficit came as something of a shock to those who pay attention to such things. We knew the budget deficit was getting smaller, but we didn't realize just how quickly the perceived problem was vanishing -- we're now looking at over $400 billion in deficit reduction in just one year, and about $800 billion in deficit reduction since President Obama took office.

There are several important angles to this, but perhaps the most politically salient one is the way in which the shrinking deficit leaves Republican talking points in tatters. GOP arguments about President Obama's fiscal recklessness now look absurd. Conservative cries about the United States becoming Greece look ridiculous. Republican demands for austerity appear pointless and unnecessarily destructive.

And yet, the drive among congressional Republicans to hold the nation hostage and create another debt-ceiling crisis remains unaffected.

Looking to up the ante on debt limit negotiations, House conservatives will push to enact spending changes included in the House-passed budget in exchange for an increase in the nation's debt ceiling.

The House Republican Conference will meet Wednesday afternoon to discuss the way forward on debt limit negotiations, and a conservative aide said that instead of making cuts to discretionary spending, members are seeking a structural overhaul.

"We do expect many conservatives to make the point that the debt ceiling needs to be tied to reforms from our House-passed budget that get us on a path to balance in 10 years, especially via mandatory spending that drives our debt," the aide said.

The deficit is already shrinking at a pace unseen in modern generations, but for many members of the conservative Republican Study Committee, unless Democrats agree to even more deficit reduction, they'll embrace default and crash the economy on purpose.

There's just no reason for any of this. It's a strategy impervious to facts.

Getty Images

Scandal hierarchies can be tricky, because even the most honest political observers can have sincere disagreements over the seriousness of a controversy. It seems to me, though, that if there are three main Obama administration "scandals" -- Benghazi, IRS scrutiny, and AP subpoenas -- one rises above the other two.

The Benghazi story is a tragedy and a national-security matter, but attempts to turn it into a political controversy have been misguided. The IRS story is legit, but limited -- it's hard to run an all-caps "White House in crisis!" banner headline when we're talking about confused bureaucrats struggling with vague tax-law guidelines, far from political interference.

But subpoenaing journalists' phone logs raises more meaningful questions about freedom of the press and law-enforcement overreach. It's not a story about the president or the White House, per se, but when the Justice Department pushes the envelope, it's a reflection of administration policy.

And yet, oddly enough, Republicans seem uncharacteristically passive about the one controversy arguably matters most.

Republican senators who have long been critics of Attorney General Eric Holder were noticeably muted on Tuesday when asked to respond to the news of the Justice Department seizing reporters' records as part of a broader probe into national security leaks.

"Well, I think we need to see how this plays out," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), one of Holder's biggest critics and who last year demanded that the attorney general resign amid the Fast and Furious gun-running probe. "I have questions about it, but I'm willing to wait and see how this plays out, whether it was narrowly targeted or whether it was a net that was too broadly cast," Cornyn said.

"I want to see the details -- what was their rationale, why did they do it -- before offering an opinion," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who earlier this week accused the administration of engaging in a "cover-up" in Benghazi. "For me, to rush to a judgment without knowing all the facts is just not appropriate."

Really? Cornyn has never seen any need to "wait and see how this plays out" with other stories related to the Obama administration, and McCain loves rushing to judgment without knowing all the facts. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) condemned administration scandals yesterday, but didn't mention the AP subpoenas, and neither House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) nor House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) have commented on the AP story directly. [Update: Even Ted Cruz doesn't seem to care.]

So what's going on here? There's one compelling explanation.

We could argue that freedom of the press isn't exactly a top Republican priority, so they aren't inclined to reflexively leap to the AP's defense in this story, but I think there's more to it than that.

In this case, Republicans appear to be largely taking a pass because they wanted this investigation and very likely approve of the Justice Department's aggressiveness.

[I]t wasn't so long ago that politicians in both parties didn't think the administration was doing enough to investigate unauthorized disclosures of classified national security material.

In the summer of 2012, Republicans especially were calling for further scrutiny of national security leaks they believed came from the administration to prop up President Barack Obama's re-election bid.... Last year, Republicans called for an independent counsel because they believed at the time the administration would not go far enough in pursuing the potential leakers.

Dave Weigel highlighted a series of quotes from congressional Republicans demanding a sweeping investigation of last year's leak, which is exactly what the DOJ gave them. If Republicans expressed outrage about the AP story now, they'd effectively be arguing, "We can't believe the Justice Department is doing what we suggested they do."

Indeed, our pal James Carter flagged this video of Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) during a House Judiciary Committee last year, insisting that reporters should be subpoenaed as part of the leak investigation.

The story about the AP subpoenas should renew a conversation about a possible "shield" law for journalists, a policy the White House is still on record supporting. Does the ongoing controversy change the nature of congressional Republicans' opposition to the law? Perhaps not.