A Justice Department audit report faults the federal government for gaps in tracking people with terrorism connections who were added to the Witness Protection Program.

Originally designed to protect people who testified against organized crime figures by giving  them new names and addresses, the program was expanded to cover witnesses who testify in terrorism trials. Some were purely witnesses. Some, however, were in the federal terrorism database as suspected terrorists themselves.

As recently as a few years ago, the report says, people in the program who had terrorism connections, but were given a new identities, could have flown on a commercial flight because only their old names were on the government’s “no-fly” list.  The report says it found "some" witness protection program participants who actually did fly.  The Inspector General says while government officials knew about their plans to travel and approved, "these individuals, on their own accord, could have flown" without approval.

Justice Department officials say that problem has now been fixed by disclosing the new identities to government agencies that maintain terrorism databases and by banning all participants in the witnesses protection program who are on the no-fly list from traveling on commercial flights.

The report also says that in July 2012, the U.S. Marshals Service was unable to locate two former participants in the witness protection program who'd been identified as suspected terrorists.  But government officials say two had left the program, and the United States, "years ago," after fulfilling their obligations to testify or serve prison time.

There are currently  no participants in the witnesses protection program who are unaccounted for, the officials said.

More from Open Channel:

• Lax state rules provide cover for sponsors of attack ads
• Dzhokhar Tsarnaev scribbled note inside boat where he was hiding
• Bomb plot briefing may undercut DOJ's case for AP records seizure

Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook 

Table saws are the tool of choice for millions of construction workers and do-it-yourselfers, which explains why they maim so many people in the U.S. – more than 67,000 a year, according to government estimates.

That number might be much lower, if saw manufacturers adopted a technology known as SawStop, which uses a weak electrical current run through the saw blade to detect when it comes in contact with a person, then almost instantaneously stops it .

But as FairWarning.org reports, power tool manufacturers and trade groups have opposed efforts to require SawStop or similar technology on table saws, arguing that the injury numbers have been inflated and that the government’s estimate of $2.36 billion in annual costs to society from table saw accidents is exaggerated. They also say that requiring such industry-reduction systems would destroy the market for popular lightweight saws, which cost as little as $100.

The resistance to the digit-saving technology “highlights the endless due process that makes it virtually impossible for regulators to enact safety measures over the unified objections of industry,” FairWarning’s Myron Levin writes in an eye-opening examination of the behind-the-scenes battle.

Click here to read the full report and see a video demonstration of the SawStop in action.

More from Open Channel:

• Lax state rules provide cover for sponsors of attack ads
• Dzhokhar Tsarnaev scribbled note inside boat where he was hiding
• Bomb plot briefing may undercut DOJ's case for AP records seizure

Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook 

While much criticism has been lobbed at the federal system for failing to adequately identify who is spending money to influence campaigns, 35 states have independent spending disclosure laws that are less stringent than federal election law.

In fact, in 30 states it’s impossible to total how much money outside groups are spending on campaigns, information that is mostly available when it comes to federal contests.

That’s according to a new 50-state analysis by the National Institute on Money in State Politics, which graded the states on disclosure requirements for super PACs, nonprofits and other outside spending groups.

Fifteen states — Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin — received an “A” grade, meaning the states’ laws were at least as robust as federal independent spending requirements.

New Jersey and Virginia, states where residents will be casting votes for governor and state legislature this year, were among 26 states that received a failing grade in the analysis  by the nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that focuses on the influence of campaign money on state-level elections and public policy in all 50 states.

The others were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Wyoming.

States were graded on a 100-point scale, based on how much information is provided to the public about non-candidate organizations that buy ads, often negative and misleading, just before an election. Six states — Alabama, Indiana, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota and South Carolina — didn’t garner a single point in the survey.

Independent super PACs and nonprofits intent on influencing campaigns proliferated in the wake of the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, adding about $1 billion in spending  in federal races in the 2012 election cycle.

At the state level, lavish spending by outside groups often faces weaker disclosure rules than federal contests and receives far less media attention.

The result is a mishmash of rules, with some states scrambling to pass legislation in the wake of the high court decision while others show little interest in enacting any changes.

In South Carolina, for example, outside groups paid for ads attacking several state and local politicians in 2012 but were not required to report the spending.

Two federal court decisions have left the state without “any rules” related to outside groups’ spending, according to Cathy L. Hazelwood, deputy director of the state Ethics Commission.

State Sen. Wes Hayes, a Republican from Rock Hill, estimates that an anonymous group called Conservative GOP PAC, which despite its name has no apparent affiliation with the state’s Republican party, spent at least $100,000 on campaign fliers in an unsuccessful effort to unseat him.

He concedes that’s just a guess.

“I’ll never know the amount, just like I’ll never know who spent it,” Hayes says. Efforts to contact Conservative GOP PAC were unsuccessful, as the group has no office, no phone number, no website, did not file incorporation records with the state and no individuals have claimed membership in the organization.

Non-candidate, independent spending on elections can be broken into two general categories: “independent expenditures” and “electioneering.” With independent expenditures, potential voters are asked to back or oppose a candidate. With electioneering, a candidate is named, but there’s no explicit request for support or opposition.

In 25 of 50 states, electioneering advertisements are not required to be reported, according to the analysis by the National Institute.

The term “electioneering communications” came to be with the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. The federal law requires such expenditures be reported, but it applies only to television and radio ads that air shortly before an election.

In a few states, however, the definition of electioneering communications is broader than at the federal level, and may include non-broadcast expenditures like direct mail and print advertising. Independent expenditures refer to all expenditures used to support or oppose a candidate, including non-advertising costs like polling and yard signs.

Points were withheld in the survey based on the level of disclosure and whether disclosure forms differentiate between independent spending and other types of campaign expenditures.

While North Dakota scored a zero, the state passed legislation this year that will beef up disclosure requirements for outside groups once the law goes into effect Aug. 1.

The National Institute’s rankings focus solely on spending and not on donors to the groups that are doing the spending. Increasingly, “social welfare” nonprofits — currently at the center of a scandal involving the IRS — and trade associations are being used to hide donors’ identities in both federal and state races.

In New Mexico, outside political action groups spent heavily on races for the state Legislature, races that typically attract fewer than 20,000 voters. Once sleepy contests have become bruising battles fought through statewide television ads, said state Sen. Peter Wirth, a Democrat from Santa Fe.

He’s pushed a bill requiring greater disclosure by outside groups through the Senate three times (twice with unanimous approval) only to see it die in the state House after frenetic lobbying by “very powerful special interests” from both parties, he says.

“It’s bipartisan support in the open, and then behind the scenes it’s full-on bipartisan opposition,” Wirth says.

But several states have enacted disclosure requirements that go beyond federal requirements.

•In Maryland, corporations are required to alert shareholders about a company’s independent political spending;

•A “stand by your ad” provision in a 2010 Massachusetts law requires that in corporate-funded ads, the CEO appear in the spot;

•Alaska, California and North Carolina require independent expenditure groups to list their top donors in political ads.

The National Institute’s rankings also factor whether states require independent spending groups to disclose which candidate they are targeting.

Two states, Florida and Delaware, require that spending be made public but not the targets or the purpose of the spending. The result: It’s virtually impossible to track how much was spent by outside groups trying to hurt or help a particular candidate.

Thirty-six states will elect governors in 2014. Edwin Bender, executive director of the National Institute on Money in State Politics, said he hopes states with poor grades will strengthen their reporting requirements.

“The majority of states will elect their governors and other major statewide offices in 2014,” he said. “We think the public should know how much money is spent on these races, and by whom.” 

John Dunbar contributed to this report.

The Center for Public Integrity is a nonprofit, non-partisan investigative news organization in Washington, D.C. For more of its stories on this to go publicintegrity.org.

For more information about money in state politics, visit www.followthemoney.org.

More from Open Channel:

• Dzhokhar Tsarnaev scribbled note inside boat where he was hiding
• Bomb plot briefing may undercut DOJ's case for AP records seizure
• Cruel or necessary? The true cost of wild horse roundups

Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook 

CBS News via AFP - Getty Images

This image obtained April 19 courtesy CBS News shows Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing who was captured hiding in a boat in a Boston suburb.

Bleeding and hunted by police, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev scrawled a note inside the hull of the boat where he was hiding saying that the Boston Marathon bombings were retaliation for American action against Muslims, sources told NBC News on Thursday.

In the note, Tsarnaev, the lone surviving suspect in the marathon attack, said many of the things he told investigators from his hospital bed days later, after his capture, the sources said.

The note was first reported by CBS News.

Tsarnaev was discovered hiding in the boat, in suburban Watertown, Mass., on April 19 after a daylong manhunt that paralyzed Boston and its surroundings. He had been wounded in a firefight with police.

Tsarnaev, 19, is in a federal prison hospital in Massachusetts and has been charged with using a weapon of mass destruction. He could face the death penalty. His older brother, Tamerlan, was killed in the firefight.

Three people were killed and 264 injured when two bombs exploded near the marathon finish line April 15.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev told investigators in the days after his capture that the brothers acted alone and were defending Islam after the American-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. officials have told NBC News.

Investigators are also focusing on a six-month trip to Russia that Tamerlan Tsarnaev made last year, looking for clues to his radicalization. He was buried last week at a Muslim cemetery in Virginia after cemeteries in Massachusetts refused the body.

This story was originally published on Thu May 16, 2013 8:02 AM EDT

Manuel Balce Ceneta / AP file

CIA Director John Brennan, shown testifying on Capitol Hill on April 11, testified he conducted a background briefing after the Associated Press reported the Yemen bomb plot in May 2012 to avoid "dangerous questions and speculation."

A massive Justice Department investigation into the disclosure by the Associated Press of an ongoing covert operation against an al Qaeda suicide cell in Yemen -- a probe that included a sweeping  secret subpoena of the press association’s phone records  -- has been justified by U.S. officials on the grounds that the news organization “put the American people at risk.”

But that assertion by Attorney General Eric Holder could be undermined by the White House’s decision to publicly comment about the operation at the time and reveal details beyond those in the original AP story, according to legal experts and counterterrorism officials.

Within hours after the AP published its May 7, 2012 story, then-White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, currently the director of the CIA, held a background conference call in which he assured television network commentators that the bomb plot was never a threat to the American public or aviation safety.

The reason, he said, is because intelligence officials had “inside control” over it.

He later told the Senate Intelligence Committee that he conducted the briefing to avoid “dangerous questions and speculation” about the operation.

Brennan’s account came after the AP reported what it called “an intelligence victory for the United States,” saying  intelligence officials had thwarted an “ambitious plot” by an al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen “to destroy a U.S. bound airliner” using a refined underwear bomb.  

U.S. officials say that, when they were first contacted by the AP, they were concerned publication of the story would endanger the life of a British informant who had penetrated the group. AP executives say they agreed to hold their story until they were assured by government officials that “national security concerns had passed.”

Brennan’s use of the phrase “inside control,” a detail not initially included in the AP story, quickly led U.S. news organizations to report that the plot had been foiled by an undercover informant.

“The U.S. government is saying it never came close because they had insider information, insider control, which implies that they had somebody on the inside who wasn’t going to let it happen,” Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism adviser to Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush and who participated on the conference call with Brennan, said on ABC’s “Nightline” that evening.

NBC’s Chief Justice Correspondent, Pete Williams, did further reporting for Nightly News the next night.  “It turns out that the bomber was actually an informant cooperating with intelligence services friendly to the United States,” Williams reported.

Bolstering his reporting was an interview with Homeland Security Janet Napolitano.

“I want to say that the device was always under control, and that no one in the Unites States was ever at risk because we did have control,” she said.

“The administration’s background statements helped reporters put two and two together and ultimately led to the disclosure that did reveal the existence of an intelligence source,” said Michael Leiter, the former director the National Counter-Terrorism Center under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama and now an NBC News counterterrorism analyst. “That’s not to say that the original leak didn’t also do damage and undermine operations.”

Tommy Vietor, then chief national security spokesman for the White House, disputed the idea that Brennan disclosed sensitive details in his background briefing and said  it was “ridiculous” to equate Brennan’s use of the  phrase  “inside control” with having an “informant.”  

U.S. officials acknowledge that, after they were contacted by the AP and told it was going to publish the story, they alerted British intelligence, which scrambled to extract the informant and his family from Yemen. But the leak infuriated British officials and strained relations between MI-6, the country’s intelligence service, and the CIA, officials say. Moreover, U.S. national security officials familiar with the matter said the real damage was done by the original leak to the AP because it revealed that the FBI had possession of the bomb. It also ended any chance of using the informant in the future. “They were going to keep him in there,” said the official.

Still, the willingness of administration officials to publicly comment on the plot could undercut the Justice Department’s position if the AP decides to take any legal action challenging the secret subpoenas.

“It complicates considerably the force of the argument that this disclosure seriously compromised national security,” said Floyd Abrams, a leading First Amendment lawyer who represented the New York Times in a historic legal  battle over its publication of the Pentagon Papers.

In that case, Abrams noted, the Times successfully argued that much of what the Justice Department had argued was damaging in the papers had already been revealed in public statements by U.S. government officials.

David Schulz, a lawyer for AP, said the news organization is “exploring all our  options” for  legal action to challenge the Justice Department’s secret subpoena for about two months of AP phone records on 20 separate telephone lines in an effort to identify the leaker.

Related stories

AP, DOJ clash over seriousness of leak that prompted phone records seizure

AP calls government's records seizure a 'massive and unprecedented intrusion'

Among those options, he said, were filing suit for a “declaratory judgment” that the subpoena had violated its reporters’ rights and a demand for a return of the phone records and an order that the Justice Department destroy all copies. In doing so, the AP may cite the comments by Brennan as evidence that the leak did not harm national security in the way that the Department of Justice has asserted, h said.

“We were surprised by the attorney general’s comments yesterday about the potential security threat  from the leak under investigation,” Schulz said in an email to NBC News. “The president’s top national security advisor at the time said there was never a risk to air safety, and ‘no one in the United States was ever at risk.’ These shifting positions show the malleable nature of national security claims, and underscore the need for independent review by a judge when civil rights are infringed to protect against asserted security threats.”

More from Open Channel:

• Cruel or necessary? The true cost of wild horse roundups
• IRS mishandling of Tea Party reviews still unresolved, audit charges
• As applications swell, IRS nonprofit division overloaded, understaffed

Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook 

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder calls on a reporter during a news conference at the Justice Department on Tuesday.

Justice Department and Associated Press officials clashed Tuesday over leaked classified information that led the government to seize AP phone records, with Attorney General Eric Holder saying it “put the American people at risk” and the news organization’s chief executive insisting it delayed publishing its story until it was assured “national security concerns had passed.”

The day of back-and-forth public sallies came as new details emerged about negotiations between the AP and U.S. officials over the unauthorized release of classified information on a foiled bomb plot in Yemen, information that apparently triggered the investigation.

“This was a very, very serious leak,” Holder said at a news conference. “I’ve been a prosecutor since 1976 – and I have to say that this is among, if not the most serious, in the top two or three most serious leaks that I’ve ever seen. It put the American people at risk – and that is not hyperbole.”

Holder defended the secret subpoena for about two months of AP phone records on 20 separate telephone lines without prior notice as a necessary step, saying that trying to find the source of the leak “required very aggressive action.”

Holder’s comments and a letter from Deputy Attorney General James Cole defending the seizure of the AP records – without notifying the news organization until last week --  drew a stern response from AP President and CEO Gary Pruitt. He  blasted the action as "overbroad under the law," saying  that "more than 100 journalists work in the locations served by those telephones."

"Rather than talk to us in advance, they seized these phone records in secret, saying that notifying us would compromise their investigation," Pruitt said in a statement late Tuesday. “They offer no explanation of this, however.

Julie Fletcher / AP file

Associated Press President and CEO Gary Pruitt.

"Instead they captured the telephone numbers between scores of AP journalists and the many people they talk to in the normal business of gathering news."

Pruitt also defended the AP's decision to publish the story that apparently sparked the leak investigation.

The May 2012 AP article disclosed what it said was a CIA operation that foiled a plot to  plant a bomb on a  plane from Yemen on the first anniversary of Osama bin Laden's death.  

The covert operation involved an informant working for British intelligence, who passed along information about a plot to detonate a refined version of a so-called “underwear bomb” aboard a U.S.-bound aircraft, intelligence officials told NBC News.  The leak, and the CIA’s subsequent claim that it was behind the operation, infuriated the British, who said it put their operative at risk, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Prior to the publication of the story, there were extensive negotiations among AP, White House and CIA officials, said the officials. The AP initially agreed to hold the story until May 8, 2012, thereby giving intelligence officials time to minimize any risk to the informant and his family, they said.

But as first reported by Reuters, the agreement broke down at the last minute over AP demands that the U.S. government officials not confirm the details of the news organization’s account for an hour after publication. A source familiar with the negotiations said White House officials concluded they could not make such a promise given they expected to be deluged with media inquiries about the matter.

Erin Madigan, a spokeswoman for the AP, disputed the Reuters account.

 “As we told Reuters a year ago, at no point did AP offer or propose a deal in relation to this story. We did not publish anything until we were assured by high-ranking officials with direct knowledge of the situation, in more than one part of the government, that the national security risk was over and no one was in danger.”

In any case, the AP ran the story on May 7. That evening, shortly before the network news broadcasts, then-White House Counter-Terrorism Adviser John Brennan held a background briefing for former counterterrorism advisers. The former advisers then appeared on television networks to talk about the foiled plot and maintain that intelligence officials had “inside control” over it.

Brennan, now CIA director, later told the Senate Intelligence Committee that he conducted the briefing to avoid “dangerous questions and speculation” about the operation.

Pruitt on Tuesday denied the article posed a threat to national security.

"We held that story until the government assured us that the national security concerns had passed," he said. "Indeed, the White House was preparing to publicly announce that the bomb plot had been foiled.

"The White House had said there was no credible threat to the American people in May of 2012. The AP story suggested otherwise, and we felt that was important information and the public deserved to know it."

Pruitt's statement  came after he received a letter from Cole, the deputy attorney general, which said  "there was a basis to believe" the phone numbers subpoenaed "were associated with AP personnel involved in the reporting of classified information." He said the subpoenas were "limited to a reasonable period of time" and were only taken after all "alternative investigative steps had been taken …  including conducting over 550 interviews and reviewing tens of thousands of documents." 

 The statement from the AP came as criticism of the Justice subpoena mounted on Capitol Hill and elsewhere.

 The House Judiciary Committee is planning to grill Holder about the matter at a previously scheduled oversight hearing on Wednesday, said Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the panel’s chairman.

“We definitely have some pointed questions about how and why it was decided to request such a broad and lengthy” subpoena, he told NBC News.

Holder has recused himself in the case, apparently because he had prior knowledge of the information that was leaked. If Holder says he can’t answer detailed questions about the case because of his recusal, Goodlatte said the panel will follow up with Cole, his deputy.

“We will definitely be pursuing this matter,” Goodlatte said.

His comments came as others voiced sharp criticism of the AP subpoena. Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey told Fox News on Tuesday that “it was a broader gathering of information that should never have been authorized.”

More from Open Channel:

• Cruel or necessary? The true cost of wild horse roundups
• IRS mishandling of Tea Party reviews still unresolved, audit charges
• As applications swell, IRS nonprofit division overloaded, understaffed

Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook 

Singer-songwriter Carole King, left, and Joan Guilfoyle, head of the Bureau of Land Management's Wild Horse and Burro Program, have opposing views of the wild horse roundups.

The Bureau of Land Management's roundups of wild horses and burros fire strong emotions on both sides of the issue. Here, in their own words, BLM Program Chief Joan Guilfoyle and singer-songwriter Carole King, a wild horse advocate, present their views: 

Guilfoyle: 'We have too many of them out there'

As the head of the Bureau of Land Management's Wild Horse and Burro Program since August 2011, Guilfoyle is responsible for overseeing the government's helicopter roundups and the holding facilities for wild horses and burros.

Guilfoyle is an avid outdoorswoman who came to her job after holding other prominent positions with the BLM, National  Park Service and USDA Forest Service. She holds a bachelor's degree in zoology/ecology and a master's degree in environmental learning and leadership.

More information from roundup supporters:

Bureau of Land Management Wild Horse and Burro Program

National Cattlemen's Beef Association

The Wildlife Society

King: 'Leave them where they are'

King is not only famous for being one of America's great pop singers and songwriters, she's also an environmentalist who advocates for greater protection of wild horses.  

King supports the American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign, has worked with the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and has testified before Congress on environmental issues.  She lives on a ranch in Idaho near one of the government's wild horse herd management areas.

More information from roundup critics:

American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign

Wild Horse Education

The Cloud Foundation

Related stories

Cruel or necessary? The true cost of wild horse roundups

One man purchased 1,700 mustangs; where are they now?

Family nurses wild horse back to health

Complete coverage of wild horse roundups

Dave Philipps

Tom Davis at his corrals in La Jara, Colo.

The semis would rumble down country roads packed full of wild horses. Truckload after truckload, sometimes 36 horses at a time, all with the same destination: a ranch in the small town of La Jara, Colo.  

Records show that for years, the Bureau of Land Management sold and shipped more than 1,700 wild horses from its animal holding facilities to just one rancher. Now federal investigators are trying to figure out:  What did he do with all those mustangs? And did any of them ultimately end up being butchered in the slaughter plants of Mexico? 

Wild horse advocates fear the worst. They want to know the truth about the fate of the horses and whether the U.S. government looked the other way as the federally protected animals seemingly disappeared. 

“I want to know where the horses went,” said Laura Leigh of the group Wild Horse Education, which advocates on behalf of the wild mustangs. “It’s disgusting, it’s abhorrent.  Whoever signed that slip to approve those sales, I want to look them in the eye and say, ‘What were you thinking?’” 

Federal investigation
The BLM is charged with protecting wild horses under federal law and has confirmed that the Interior Department Office of Inspector General is investigating the agency’s sale of mustangs to rancher and livestock hauler Tom Davis. 

The Davis investigation comes amid a growing controversy over the BLM’s Wild Horse and Burro Program. The agency faces a dire situation: Nearly 50,000 horses captured during frequent roundups, so-called “excess animals,” are living in government holding facilities that are nearing capacity.  Horse adoptions are down, so the BLM has turned to selling the animals. 

The government says Davis, who paid just $10 per head, was the biggest buyer ever of wild horses. Its sale of the animals to Davis from 2008 to 2012 was uncovered by writer Dave Philipps in a September 2012 story, “All The Missing Horses,” for the nonprofit news organization ProPublica.  The story questioned whether Davis sent the horses to so-called “kill buyers,” middle men who export livestock to meat packing plants in Mexico, but reached no firm conclusion. 

At the time, BLM issued this response to the ProPublica story: “The BLM condemns any sale of wild horses for slaughter.  We care deeply about the well-being of wild horses, both on and off the range, and the BLM does not sell and has not knowingly sold or sent horses or burros to slaughter.” 

Slideshow: Big dustup over wild horses

Courtesy of The Cloud Foundation

Controversy over roundups of wild horses roaming the ranges in 10 Western states is reaching a boil, with ranchers, horse advocates and even the government itself in agreement that the Bureau of Land Management's Wild Horse and Bureau Program is "out of control." Click to view photos of the horses in the wild, and during and after the BLM roundups.

Launch slideshow

Davis did not respond to repeated attempts by NBC News to contact him for comment and his lawyer, former federal prosecutor William Taylor, declined to answer questions about the federal investigation of his client. 

But Taylor provided NBC News with a statement criticizing the government for not following part of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act.  While the 1971 law was enacted to protect wild horses, Taylor said, “Congress specifically amended the Act in 2005 to remove ‘excess’ animals from the Department of Interior’s protection, and to force the government to sell those animals without condition. … How does the government have any power under the Act to bring a case based on the sale of excess animals?”

The BLM acknowledges on its website that it is “not in compliance” with that part of the federal law which directs the agency to sell excess animals “without limitation” to any willing buyer, even to those who would slaughter the animals.

Last year, ProPublica reported that Davis is a proponent of slaughtering wild horses in the BLM’s holding system and that he had tried unsuccessfully to obtain funding to open a slaughter plant in Colorado.

“Hell, some of the finest meat you will ever eat is a fat yearling colt,” Davis was quoted as saying, “What is wrong with taking all those BLM horses they got all fat and shiny and setting up a kill plant?”

But Davis denied to ProPublica that he ever knowingly resold any wild horses for slaughter, saying he found “good homes” for the mustangs he purchased from BLM.  

Who needs 1,700 horses?
According to BLM sales documents obtained by ProPublica under the Freedom of Information Act, Davis told government officials he wanted the animals to “put on oil fields ... to keep grass controlled” and to “use for movies.”  

Horse advocate Leigh said neither of those explanations should have withstood the government’s scrutiny. 

“You know, I haven’t seen any Westerns coming out of Mexico with wild horses being stampeded in front of a camera,” she said.  “It’s a joke and it’s not a funny one.” 

So-called state brand certificates issued by the state of Colorado and obtained by NBC News indicate Davis shipped many of the animals he bought from the BLM to small towns near the Mexican border. The Colorado brand commissioner says approximately 431 horses shipped from Davis’ property “appear to be BLM horses” that were sent to unspecified addresses in towns in different parts of New Mexico and Texas, including Spofford, Texas, 36 miles from the Eagle Pass border crossing into Mexico. 

“It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that there are Mexican slaughterhouses across that border,” said Ginger Kathrens of The Cloud Foundation, a wild horse advocacy group. “So it’s not a stretch to think that those horses ended up going to slaughter.” 

Another advocacy group, the American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign, has called for the investigation of both Davis and the BLM. The organization’s director, Suzanne Roy, said, “I think the government looked the other way at what was happening to these horses. ... I think it was willful ignorance on the part of the government.” 

Joan Guilfoyle, chief of BLM’s Wild Horse and Burro Program, told NBC News she does not know what happened to the horses that were sold to Davis, but denied the agency did anything wrong.  “We have no knowledge of him being a person who has ill intent toward the horses,” she said, “so there was no reason to question the purchase of these (animals) because he has to sign the paper that says what his intention is.” 

In fact, 50 BLM bills of sale reviewed by NBC News indicate Davis agreed not to resell the wild horses for slaughter. On a BLM sales questionnaire, Davis’ name was signed on this declaration: “I agree to provide humane care and to not sell or transfer ownership of any listed wild horse or wild burro to any person or organization with the interest to resell or trade or give away animals for processing into commercial products.” 

An official familiar with the Davis investigation told NBC News that investigators are not only trying to determine what happened to the horses, but whether Davis violated any of the conditions of his purchase. 

Loyola Law School professor and former federal prosecutor Laurie Levenson said that, based on the bill of sale language, investigators could be trying to determine if there is evidence of a felony violation such as lying or making a false statement to a federal official. 

New sales rules
In January 2013, BLM responded to public criticism of its sale of wild horses to Davis by announcing new rules for the agency’s sales program.  In an effort to prevent future large sales of wild horses, the agency issued a memorandum stating: “Without prior approval from the (BLM) assistant director, no more than four wild horses and/or burros may be purchased by an individual or group within a six-month period.” 

Horse advocacy groups immediately criticized the new rules as “window dressing.”  Laura Leigh of Wild Horse Education said, “It changes nothing, especially when they add a little fine print in there.  There is no change.  It creates a press release so BLM can look responsible, like they’re listening to the American public.” 

Related stories

Cruel or necessary? The true cost of wild horse roundups

In their own words: opposing views of the horse roundups

Family nurses baby wild horse to health

It's not just about mustangs: the battle over burros

One month later, U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., and 20 other members of Congress signed a letter to then-Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar, who oversaw BLM, citing the “substantial public outcry” over the ProPublica story on Davis.  The Feb. 13 letter said the co-signers were “troubled by your department’s lack of response to the legitimate concerns raised” by horse advocates and demanded an update about the Inspector’s General investigation.  Grijalava’s office said Salazar never responded to the letter.

Later this year, the Office of Inspector General is expected to present its findings to a U.S. Attorney, who will decide if any charges will be filed against Davis.

Lisa Myers is NBC News' Senior Investigative Correspondent; Michael Austin is a producer in NBC's bureau in Burbank, Calif.

Public criticism of roundups is not limited to wild horses. The Bureau of Land Management also conducts annual “gather” operations to remove “excess” wild burros from herd areas in the West.

In this video, advocates for the wild burros document "aggressive" roundup practices, including a helicopter hitting and flipping over a burro in the California desert in 2009 and a BLM contract wrangler manhandling a reluctant burro during a 2008 roundup in Arizona.

As with the wild horse roundups, the BLM defends the operations as humane and says that incidents such as these are both isolated and contrary to its contractor guidelines.

The BLM says there are about 5,800 wild burros living in the wild, mostly in Arizona, Nevada and California, but many advocates believe the wild burro population is much smaller and that burro roundups are unnecessary.

Lisa Myers is NBC News' Senior Investigative Correspondent; Michael Austin is a producer in NBC's bureau in Burbank, Calif.

Related stories

Cruel or necessary? The true cost of wild horse roundups

One man purchased 1,700 mustangs; where are they now?

In their own words: In their own words: opposing views of wild horse roundups

Family nurses wild horse back to health

Complete coverage of wild horse roundups

Amid withering accusations the Internal Revenue Service targeted tea party and other conservative groups with enhanced scrutiny, the agency faces another problem: It’s drowning in paperwork.

The IRS’ Exempt Organizations Division, which finds itself at the scandal’s epicenter, processed significantly more tax exemption applications by so-called 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organizations — 2,774 during fiscal year 2012 — since at least the late 1990s, according to an analysis of IRS records by the Center for Public Integrity.

Compare that to 1,777 applications in 2011 and 1,741 in 2010, federal records show. Not since 2002, when officials processed 2,402 applications, have so many been received.

Meanwhile, Exempt Organizations Division staffing slid from 910 employees during fiscal year 2009 to 876 during fiscal year 2012, agency personnel documents indicate.

In 2010, IRS officials projected exempt division staffing at 942 employees. But IRS officials cut the number to 900 after the agency began slashing its budget in response to fiscal woes affecting most corners of the federal government.

The agency said this weekend that a heavy workload prompted bureaucrats to “centralize” the “influx of advocacy applications” and, in the name of efficiency, scrutinize groups that contained more common phrases such as “tea party” in them.

“That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive and inappropriate — that’s not how we go about selecting cases for further review,” Lois Lerner, IRS exempt organizations director, said Friday. “We don’t select for review because they have a particular name.”

Lerner, who denied the targeting was politically motivated, added that about 75 groups with words such as “tea party” or “patriot” received extra scrutiny but none had its tax-exempt status revoked.

The IRS could not be reached for comment Monday.

For Washington, D.C.,-based attorney Dan Backer, who represents two tea party-affiliated organizations, blaming such actions on staffing cuts and increased workload is a “lame excuse” that the IRS should stop using.

“They could have hired new employees, they could have reallocated employees, they could have done a lot of things, the not doing of which doesn't suddenly make it OK for them to engage in viewpoint discrimination,” said Backer, who said he is considering suing the IRS. “At worst, their staffing woes maybe justifies a growing backlog, not discriminating against those whose viewpoints they disagree with.”

IRS records show that applications of the most common nonprofit organizations — 501(c)(3) educational nonprofits, private foundations, charities and the like — have dropped this decade after reaching a high of more than 85,000 in fiscal 2007. Generally, this type of nonprofit entity must remain apolitical.

As for 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations, such as the tea party groups in question, they may engage in politics so long as it isn’t their primary purpose.

During the 2012 election cycle, however, numerous 501(c)(4) organizations — most of them conservative, a few left-leaning and all endowed with new spending powers thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision — together spent tens of millions of dollars overtly advocating for or against political candidates.

And unlike super PACs, which may also raise and spend unlimited amounts of money, they’re not required to reveal their donors.

Democrats primarily cried foul, accusing groups such as the Karl Rove-backed Crossroads GPS and Koch brothers-supported Americans for Prosperity of violating their tax-exempt status.

But the IRS has taken no definitive action against these or other nonprofit groups, and several campaign finance reform advocates have opined that this latest incident will further stymie their effort to convince the IRS to crack down on nonprofit groups they consider overridingly political.

As for tea party-named nonprofit groups, for all the attention now on them, they generally played bit roles during the 2012 election.

Of the more than 40 organizations that identified themselves as tea party-related in IRS documents, just one — the National Tea Party Group of California — reported assets of more than $100,000 in its most recent publicly available financial filing.

For now, Republicans and Democrats in Congress have called on the Obama administration to investigate the matter, and Obama himself described the IRS’ conduct as “outrageous.”

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration is expected to release a full report on the matter later this week, and officials in the House and Senate are promising hearings.

Karen Gries, an appointee to the IRS Advisory Committee on Tax Exempt and Government Entities, says she expects her committee will discuss the matter when it meets later this year.

In the meantime, Gries praised the overall performance of Lerner, the exempt organizations director, while expressing concern about her department’s ability to do its job.

“They are asked to do more with less resources,” said Gries, a principal at with accounting firm CliftonLarsonAllen LLP. “The EO group operates very lean.”

The Center for Public Integrity is a nonprofit, non-partisan investigative news organization in Washington, D.C. For more of its stories on this to go publicintegrity.org.

More from Open Channel:

• AP calls government seizure of phone records an 'unprecedented intrusion'
• IRS watchdog: Senior official knew in 2011 that Tea Party groups were targeted
• Unaware of Tsarnaev warnings, Boston counterterror unit tracked protesters

Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook