IRS Apologizes For Targeting Conservative Political Groups In 2012 Ele (3 Viewers)

[mad sweeney]

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but if you're suggesting that a) we should be going into countries with murderous dictators and b) that's the reason why we went into Iraq, then you obviously don't have even a simple grasp of reality. And if you really believe b, and like I said, I'm not sure that's what you're saying/implying, then you're flat out stupid.

I was simply lamenting that we should have intervened in Rwanda. As far as intelligence NASA thinks I'm smart (but my wife thinks I'm an idiot). So take your pick.

There's an "if" in that statement. If you do believe we went in there to save the Iraqis from Saddam as a primary motivation, then I'll have to side with your wife.

Your use of the word "we" is inappropriate here. Different people can support the same policy for different reasons, If somebody tells me that they supported the Iraq war on humanitarian grounds, I'm inclined to believe them (since I'm not a mind reader). If Bush or Cheney or Kerry or Hillary were motivated by different considerations, that's a separate issue.

By we, I mean the US. By the US, I mean the people pointing the finger for the military to follow. By the people pointing the finger, I mean the ones who said that Iraq was a threat to the US.Basically, and it should seem very clear, I'm talking about the policy, which is all that masters since there wasn't a popular vote on whether or not we were going to invade Iraq. You even reference the policy which leads me to believe you get what I am talking about. I'm talking about going to (unofficial) war with them, not what unimportant supporters (no offense, we're all unimportant) think about it.

If somebody who was in Congress at the time tells me that he voted in favor of the Iraq war because of humanitarian reasons, who am I to tell him otherwise? You're losing sight of the fact that not everybody has to support a policy for the exact same reasons. That goes for both plebes like us and lawmakers.

I'm not losing sight of it, I just don't believe it. Some few may have had a humanitarian view of the action, but the majority didn't and neither did the upper echelon of the pyramid. We denotes the majority. The war wasn't sold as a humanitarian effort, but as a defense of the US effort.

As for your question, the answer is an American with intelligence. Though I generally disagree with you, I dont have you in the blind partisan or idiot category, I don't believe that you think politicians don't lie.

 

[mad sweeney]

The Iraq War was definitely a disaster, and while Bush deserves some blame for it, it is important to remember that most of Congress (Republicans and Democrats) was in favor of it, as were most Americans, so any president at the time, with that much support and following 9-11 where the country was begging for payback, would have done the same thing. It sucks that it turned out the way it did, but blaming it all on Bush seems short-sighted. Bush did enough to warrant a crapload of criticism without heaping that on the pile.

Well, it was his upper echelon that presented the evidence to the voters in Congress. Yes, they voted for it but I liken it to a jury who's been presented almost entirely false (intentional or incompetent) evidence as fact and convicts based on it. And I don't agree about any president doing it. We had our boots on the neck of the organizations (Taliban and QQ, and by proxy Afghanistan) that needed to be paid back. The distraction of Iraq was very clearly a progression away from payback and it wasn't marketed as payback, rather as basically pre-emptive self defense.

 

[ichris]

This is a thread about the IRS targeting conservative political groups. Iraq doesn't have anything to do with anything relevant to this topic.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Looks like the IRS has their 2 "rogue agents" that will take the fall for everyone.

 

[Hang 10]

This is a thread about the IRS targeting conservative political groups. Iraq doesn't have anything to do with anything relevant to this topic.

It's a diversion.

 

[joffer]

listening to Holder testifying before Congress right now. i can't believe we put any of these people in charge of a sandbox, let alone the country.

 

[Slapdash]

listening to Holder testifying before Congress right now. i can't believe we put any of these people in charge of a sandbox, let alone the country.

They're all just fundraisers. The system gets what it is designed to get.

 

[Hang 10]

listening to Holder testifying before Congress right now. i can't believe we put any of these people in charge of a sandbox, let alone the country.

You mean, Holder? Yeah, that guy needs to go.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Looks like the IRS has their 2 "rogue agents" that will take the fall for everyone.

of course..

 

[Phil Elliott]

Holder...and Sargeant Schultz?

 

[timschochet]

The Iraq War was definitely a disaster, and while Bush deserves some blame for it, it is important to remember that most of Congress (Republicans and Democrats) was in favor of it, as were most Americans, so any president at the time, with that much support and following 9-11 where the country was begging for payback, would have done the same thing. It sucks that it turned out the way it did, but blaming it all on Bush seems short-sighted. Bush did enough to warrant a crapload of criticism without heaping that on the pile.

You may be right about any President. But that doesn't justify it.

In 1938, the vast majority of Britons were in favor of appeasing Hitler and granting him the Sudetenland. Chamberlain only acted the way the public wanted, and any other Prime Minister (except one) might have done the same. But history blames Chamberlain, because he's the guy that ultimately was responsible, not the British public, and not Parliament. That's the price of being the leader of a country.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I'm still catching up on this one. Can someone give me the Cliff's Notes on exactly who was harmed, and how?I get that the IRS was using political terms in its effort to review potentially political applications, and that it did so in a way that flagged more right-wing organizations. Obviously that's stupid and wrong, and possibly even illegal.But how were those groups injured? Did they have to pay fines? Lose the ability to fundraise or operate in some way? And with so many Tea Party groups under attack by the government why didn't they go public?Just doesn't seem to add up.

They've been harmed by:1) having to pay taxes for the 2-3 years their forms have been held when they wouldn't pay taxes if approved2) Spending vast man hours collecting the info the IRS has requested3) Spending tons of money on lawyers trying to figure out what they legally had to provide and argue with the IRS4) Have trouble fundraising because they couldn't advertise themselves as a nonprofitAnd they did go public a year ago. There were Congressional hearings and everything where the then 2nd in command (now head of the IRS) lied and said there was nothing going on. Now we know that not only was there something going on, but that the current head of the IRS KNEW something was up. Only there was not enough evidence at that point. Now that the IG has done their job, there is a mountain of evidence. Enough that the head of the IRS felt the need to get in front of it and offer a weak apology with no explanation or names of those involved before the report even came out.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Oh, and the number of groups this affected may be closer to 500 now:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/14/lawmakers-say-irs-targeted-dozens-more-conservative-groups-than-initially/

 

[ichris]

I'm still catching up on this one. Can someone give me the Cliff's Notes on exactly who was harmed, and how?I get that the IRS was using political terms in its effort to review potentially political applications, and that it did so in a way that flagged more right-wing organizations. Obviously that's stupid and wrong, and possibly even illegal.But how were those groups injured? Did they have to pay fines? Lose the ability to fundraise or operate in some way? And with so many Tea Party groups under attack by the government why didn't they go public?Just doesn't seem to add up.

They've been harmed by:1) having to pay taxes for the 2-3 years their forms have been held when they wouldn't pay taxes if approved2) Spending vast man hours collecting the info the IRS has requested3) Spending tons of money on lawyers trying to figure out what they legally had to provide and argue with the IRS4) Have trouble fundraising because they couldn't advertise themselves as a nonprofitAnd they did go public a year ago. There were Congressional hearings and everything where the then 2nd in command (now head of the IRS) lied and said there was nothing going on. Now we know that not only was there something going on, but that the current head of the IRS KNEW something was up. Only there was not enough evidence at that point. Now that the IG has done their job, there is a mountain of evidence. Enough that the head of the IRS felt the need to get in front of it and offer a weak apology with no explanation or names of those involved before the report even came out.

You forgot to mention the part where the IRS leaked sensitive documents to liberal groups during the 2012 elections.

 

[mad sweeney]

This is a thread about the IRS targeting conservative political groups. Iraq doesn't have anything to do with anything relevant to this topic.

It's a diversion.

It's a tangent while waiting for the next batch of testimony.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Has anyone gotten Alex Jones's take?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

A- Headline: National government that has spent six years demanding ever-expansive government power from military to health care just so happens to have read the emails of journalists, at the same time it is found to have blocked government approval for forming political associations of political opponents and "tweaking" (or distorting, your pick) the public message about a terrorist attack before a general election.

Q- What country are you in?

 

[ichris]

1) having to pay taxes for the 2-3 years their forms have been held when they wouldn't pay taxes if approved4) Have trouble fundraising because they couldn't advertise themselves as a nonprofit

Two and three are a problem. You sure about one and four?

Your quote tree misfired and attributed someone elses words to me.

 

[GroveDiesel]

1) having to pay taxes for the 2-3 years their forms have been held when they wouldn't pay taxes if approved4) Have trouble fundraising because they couldn't advertise themselves as a nonprofit

Two and three are a problem. You sure about one and four?

Not 100% on 1 but fairly certain. Definitely on #4 for several reasons.

 

[jonessed]

It's being reported that the acting commissioner (Miller) has resigned.

 

[Politician Spock]

Has anyone gotten Alex Jones's take?

I think he overdosed on excitement.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

It's being reported that the acting commissioner (Miller) has resigned.

 

[MaxThreshold]

It's being reported that the acting commissioner (Miller) has resigned.

That's not going to fool anyone. Still waiting for the beneficiary of the illegal and corrupt behavior to step down.

 

[otello]

Did Obama apologize?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

It's being reported that the acting commissioner (Miller) has resigned.

That's not going to fool anyone. Still waiting for the beneficiary of the illegal and corrupt behavior to step down.

Don't hold your breath

 

[MaxThreshold]

It's being reported that the acting commissioner (Miller) has resigned.

That's not going to fool anyone. Still waiting for the beneficiary of the illegal and corrupt behavior to step down.

Don't hold your breath

I won't. One thing is for certain, though, the "Defenders of Obama" are out in full force the last couple of days. The amount of pooh-pooing by these guys of the 3 BIG stories (IRS, AP and Benghazi) is amazing.

 

[Sand]

It's being reported that the acting commissioner (Miller) has resigned.

Laughable. This patsy has been on the job for 6 months. We need to dig into the area between the two low level rogues and appointees.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

It's being reported that the acting commissioner (Miller) has resigned.

That's not going to fool anyone. Still waiting for the beneficiary of the illegal and corrupt behavior to step down.

That's exactly what the GOP in congress asked for. Well, they got it.

Anything else stops at the feet of Bush appointee Doug Shulman.

 

[ffldrew]

It's being reported that the acting commissioner (Miller) has resigned.

Laughable. This patsy has been on the job for 6 months. We need to dig into the area between the two low level rogues and appointees.

It's my understanding that he had been #2 or #3 down the totem pole when this went down - not sure if he had knowledge - but I think someone mentioned he had been involved in some Congressional testimony

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...Anyone who works in an office where there are departments left to their own devices has seen what happened here.

Please expand, BS.

Anyone who works in an office where there are departments left to their own devices has seen an episode of Restaurant Stake Out has seen what happened here.

(And no presenting examples of how this this is just human nature in less visible jobs is not meant to trivialize what happened here.)

I like Mystery Diners better.

Mystery Dinners tends to be one or two bad apples spoils the bunch

Restaurant Stakeout is "you need systems in place so everyone is on point"

 

[HellToupee]

...Anyone who works in an office where there are departments left to their own devices has seen what happened here.

Please expand, BS.

Anyone who works in an office where there are departments left to their own devices has seen an episode of Restaurant Stake Out has seen what happened here.

(And no presenting examples of how this this is just human nature in less visible jobs is not meant to trivialize what happened here.)

I like Mystery Diners better.

Mystery Dinners tends to be one or two bad apples spoils the bunch

Restaurant Stakeout is "you need systems in place so everyone is on point"

which one is that Willie guy? I like him better than the creepy guy on the other show

 

[otello]

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. 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.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It's amazing how all this crazy stuff keeps happening under Obama's watch and he has no clue and no responsibility on any of it....

You really want the white house, the president involved in the every day operations of the IRS? In any of the operations of the IRS? Should he have automatically had no faith in the Bush appointee in charge? Should he have automatically assumed that the Bush appointee was lying to Congress and the White House?

What should the administration have done sooner?

I'm not arguing that you cannot come up with good answers to that last question. I simply cannot think of a good answer in the context of my answers to the first three "loaded" questions.

The best I can come up with is that it took 3 months give or take from the end of investigation to the releasing of the report.

 

[Hang 10]

It's amazing how all this crazy stuff keeps happening under Obama's watch and he has no clue and no responsibility on any of it....

You really want the white house, the president involved in the every day operations of the IRS? In any of the operations of the IRS? Should he have automatically had no faith in the Bush appointee in charge? Should he have automatically assumed that the Bush appointee was lying to Congress and the White House?

What should the administration have done sooner?

I'm not arguing that you cannot come up with good answers to that last question. I simply cannot think of a good answer in the context of my answers to the first three "loaded" questions.

The best I can come up with is that it took 3 months give or take from the end of investigation to the releasing of the report.

For starters, not use the illegal information they received in their campaign.

 

[otello]

REP. CHARLES BOUSTANY: One other question. It’s come to my attention, I’ve gotten a number of letters, we’ve seen some recent press allegations that the IRS is targeting certain Tea Party groups cross the country — requesting owners’ documents requests, delaying approval for tax-exempt status and that kind of thing. Can you elaborate on what’s going on with that? Can you give us assurances that the IRS is not targeting particular groups based on political leanings?

DOUG SHULMAN: Thanks for bringing this up because I think there’s been a lot of press about this and a lot of moving information, so I appreciate the opportunity to clarify. First, let me start by saying, yes, I can give you assurances. As you know, we pride ourselves on being a non-political, non-partisan organization. I am the only — me and our chief counsel — are the only presidential appointees, and I have a five-year term that runs through presidential elections, just so we will have none of that kind of political intervention in things that we do. For 501 ©(4) organizations, which is what’s been in the press, organizations do not need to apply for tax exemption. Organizations can actually hold themselves out as 501 ©(4) organizations and then file a 990 with us. The organizations that have been in the press are all ones that are in the application process. First of all, I think it’s very important to emphasize that all of these organizations came in voluntarily. They did not need to engage the IRS in a back-and-forth. They could have held themselves out, filed a 990, and if we had seen an issue, we would have engaged but otherwise we wouldn’t. The basic rules around 501 ©(4) organizations are that they need to be primarily engaged in promoting the common good and general welfare of their community. They can be involved in political and campaign activity, but it can’t be their primary purpose. When people apply for 501 ©(4) status, what we do is engage them in a number of questions about making sure that we understand their primary purpose around this and other sorts of engagement. And so what’s been happening has been the normal back-and-forth that happens with the IRS. None of the alleged taxpayers– and obviously I can’t talk about individual taxpayers and I’m not involved in these — are in an examination process. They’re in an application process which they moved into voluntarily. There is absolutely no targeting. This is the kind of back-and-forth that happens when people apply for 501 ©(4) status.

 

[Fennis]

I'm still catching up on this one. Can someone give me the Cliff's Notes on exactly who was harmed, and how?I get that the IRS was using political terms in its effort to review potentially political applications, and that it did so in a way that flagged more right-wing organizations. Obviously that's stupid and wrong, and possibly even illegal.But how were those groups injured? Did they have to pay fines? Lose the ability to fundraise or operate in some way? And with so many Tea Party groups under attack by the government why didn't they go public?Just doesn't seem to add up.

They've been harmed by:1) having to pay taxes for the 2-3 years their forms have been held when they wouldn't pay taxes if approved2) Spending vast man hours collecting the info the IRS has requested3) Spending tons of money on lawyers trying to figure out what they legally had to provide and argue with the IRS4) Have trouble fundraising because they couldn't advertise themselves as a nonprofitAnd they did go public a year ago. There were Congressional hearings and everything where the then 2nd in command (now head of the IRS) lied and said there was nothing going on. Now we know that not only was there something going on, but that the current head of the IRS KNEW something was up. Only there was not enough evidence at that point. Now that the IG has done their job, there is a mountain of evidence. Enough that the head of the IRS felt the need to get in front of it and offer a weak apology with no explanation or names of those involved before the report even came out.

Why are you deliberately ignoring these parts:

March 22, 2012: IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman testified the agency did not increase difficulty for politically active groups to get tax exempt status at the House Ways and Means Committee. The Ways and Means Oversight subcommittee chairman, Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., called the hearing after he heard complaints from tea party groups about harassment from the IRS.

November 11, 2012: Shulman steps down as IRS commissioner as his term ends (he was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2008). Miller steps in as acting commissioner.

 

[Fennis]

It's amazing how all this crazy stuff keeps happening under Obama's watch and he has no clue and no responsibility on any of it....

You really want the white house, the president involved in the every day operations of the IRS? In any of the operations of the IRS? Should he have automatically had no faith in the Bush appointee in charge? Should he have automatically assumed that the Bush appointee was lying to Congress and the White House?

What should the administration have done sooner?

I'm not arguing that you cannot come up with good answers to that last question. I simply cannot think of a good answer in the context of my answers to the first three "loaded" questions.

The best I can come up with is that it took 3 months give or take from the end of investigation to the releasing of the report.

For starters, not use the illegal information they received in their campaign.

what illegal information are you referencing?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...Anyone who works in an office where there are departments left to their own devices has seen what happened here.

Please expand, BS.

Anyone who works in an office where there are departments left to their own devices has seen an episode of Restaurant Stake Out has seen what happened here.

(And no presenting examples of how this this is just human nature in less visible jobs is not meant to trivialize what happened here.)

I like Mystery Diners better.

Mystery Dinners tends to be one or two bad apples spoils the bunch

Restaurant Stakeout is "you need systems in place so everyone is on point"

which one is that Willie guy? I like him better than the creepy guy on the other show

Willie Degel is Restaurant Stakeout.

Charles Stiles is the "creepy guy" on Mystery Dinners

 

[jonessed]

It's amazing how all this crazy stuff keeps happening under Obama's watch and he has no clue and no responsibility on any of it....

You really want the white house, the president involved in the every day operations of the IRS? In any of the operations of the IRS? Should he have automatically had no faith in the Bush appointee in charge? Should he have automatically assumed that the Bush appointee was lying to Congress and the White House? What should the administration have done sooner? I'm not arguing that you cannot come up with good answers to that last question. I simply cannot think of a good answer in the context of my answers to the first three "loaded" questions. The best I can come up with is that it took 3 months give or take from the end of investigation to the releasing of the report.

For starters, not use the illegal information they received in their campaign.

what illegal information are you referencing?

The IRS was leaking private tax information about Romney donors during the election.

 

[Fennis]

It's amazing how all this crazy stuff keeps happening under Obama's watch and he has no clue and no responsibility on any of it....

You really want the white house, the president involved in the every day operations of the IRS? In any of the operations of the IRS? Should he have automatically had no faith in the Bush appointee in charge? Should he have automatically assumed that the Bush appointee was lying to Congress and the White House?

What should the administration have done sooner?

I'm not arguing that you cannot come up with good answers to that last question. I simply cannot think of a good answer in the context of my answers to the first three "loaded" questions.

The best I can come up with is that it took 3 months give or take from the end of investigation to the releasing of the report.

For starters, not use the illegal information they received in their campaign.

what illegal information are you referencing?

The IRS was leaking private tax information about Romney donors during the election.

Is it this story?

 

[Hang 10]

It's amazing how all this crazy stuff keeps happening under Obama's watch and he has no clue and no responsibility on any of it....

You really want the white house, the president involved in the every day operations of the IRS? In any of the operations of the IRS? Should he have automatically had no faith in the Bush appointee in charge? Should he have automatically assumed that the Bush appointee was lying to Congress and the White House?

What should the administration have done sooner?

I'm not arguing that you cannot come up with good answers to that last question. I simply cannot think of a good answer in the context of my answers to the first three "loaded" questions.

The best I can come up with is that it took 3 months give or take from the end of investigation to the releasing of the report.

For starters, not use the illegal information they received in their campaign.

what illegal information are you referencing?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/14/Obama-campaign-co-chair-attacked-Romney-conservative-group-in-2012-with-leaked-IRS-scandal-documents

Illegally obtained, rather.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

It's amazing how all this crazy stuff keeps happening under Obama's watch and he has no clue and no responsibility on any of it....

You really want the white house, the president involved in the every day operations of the IRS? In any of the operations of the IRS? Should he have automatically had no faith in the Bush appointee in charge? Should he have automatically assumed that the Bush appointee was lying to Congress and the White House? What should the administration have done sooner? I'm not arguing that you cannot come up with good answers to that last question. I simply cannot think of a good answer in the context of my answers to the first three "loaded" questions. The best I can come up with is that it took 3 months give or take from the end of investigation to the releasing of the report.

For starters, not use the illegal information they received in their campaign.

what illegal information are you referencing?

The IRS was leaking private tax information about Romney donors during the election.

According to who?

 

[Fennis]

It's amazing how all this crazy stuff keeps happening under Obama's watch and he has no clue and no responsibility on any of it....

You really want the white house, the president involved in the every day operations of the IRS? In any of the operations of the IRS? Should he have automatically had no faith in the Bush appointee in charge? Should he have automatically assumed that the Bush appointee was lying to Congress and the White House?

What should the administration have done sooner?

I'm not arguing that you cannot come up with good answers to that last question. I simply cannot think of a good answer in the context of my answers to the first three "loaded" questions.

The best I can come up with is that it took 3 months give or take from the end of investigation to the releasing of the report.

For starters, not use the illegal information they received in their campaign.

what illegal information are you referencing?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/14/Obama-campaign-co-chair-attacked-Romney-conservative-group-in-2012-with-leaked-IRS-scandal-documents

Illegally obtained, rather.

honestly, that's a bunch of nothing and looks some tangential issue, with probably no validity. Just my first read I could be wrong. I guess we will see how that court case plays out.

 

[Fennis]

It's amazing how all this crazy stuff keeps happening under Obama's watch and he has no clue and no responsibility on any of it....

You really want the white house, the president involved in the every day operations of the IRS? In any of the operations of the IRS? Should he have automatically had no faith in the Bush appointee in charge? Should he have automatically assumed that the Bush appointee was lying to Congress and the White House?

What should the administration have done sooner?

I'm not arguing that you cannot come up with good answers to that last question. I simply cannot think of a good answer in the context of my answers to the first three "loaded" questions.

The best I can come up with is that it took 3 months give or take from the end of investigation to the releasing of the report.

For starters, not use the illegal information they received in their campaign.

what illegal information are you referencing?

The IRS was leaking private tax information about Romney donors during the election.

According to who?

these guys

http://www.nationformarriage.org/

 

[Hang 10]

It's amazing how all this crazy stuff keeps happening under Obama's watch and he has no clue and no responsibility on any of it....

You really want the white house, the president involved in the every day operations of the IRS? In any of the operations of the IRS? Should he have automatically had no faith in the Bush appointee in charge? Should he have automatically assumed that the Bush appointee was lying to Congress and the White House?

What should the administration have done sooner?

I'm not arguing that you cannot come up with good answers to that last question. I simply cannot think of a good answer in the context of my answers to the first three "loaded" questions.

The best I can come up with is that it took 3 months give or take from the end of investigation to the releasing of the report.

For starters, not use the illegal information they received in their campaign.

what illegal information are you referencing?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/14/Obama-campaign-co-chair-attacked-Romney-conservative-group-in-2012-with-leaked-IRS-scandal-documents

Illegally obtained, rather.

honestly, that's a bunch of nothing and looks some tangential issue, with probably no validity. Just my first read I could be wrong. I guess we will see how that court case plays out.

This is just one instance. Really, though...would it surprise you? It's already a fact that they targeted one side here. Is it a stretch at all if they were caught helping the other side?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It's amazing how all this crazy stuff keeps happening under Obama's watch and he has no clue and no responsibility on any of it....

You really want the white house, the president involved in the every day operations of the IRS? In any of the operations of the IRS? Should he have automatically had no faith in the Bush appointee in charge? Should he have automatically assumed that the Bush appointee was lying to Congress and the White House?

What should the administration have done sooner?

I'm not arguing that you cannot come up with good answers to that last question. I simply cannot think of a good answer in the context of my answers to the first three "loaded" questions.

The best I can come up with is that it took 3 months give or take from the end of investigation to the releasing of the report.

For starters, not use the illegal information they received in their campaign.

what illegal information are you referencing?

The IRS was leaking private tax information about Romney donors during the election.

OK I googled this

It seems that the National Organization for Marriage had the fact that Romney donated $10,000 to them published by the Huffington Post and the Human Rights Campaign

Story

Assuming that this is what you guys are talking about:

So this does not support that the administration used leaked information during the campaign.

And technically it was not Romney's tax information

However, assuming it is true (and seems likely by the tone of the story) this can be added to list of damnable offenses.

 

[Fennis]

It's amazing how all this crazy stuff keeps happening under Obama's watch and he has no clue and no responsibility on any of it....

You really want the white house, the president involved in the every day operations of the IRS? In any of the operations of the IRS? Should he have automatically had no faith in the Bush appointee in charge? Should he have automatically assumed that the Bush appointee was lying to Congress and the White House?

What should the administration have done sooner?

I'm not arguing that you cannot come up with good answers to that last question. I simply cannot think of a good answer in the context of my answers to the first three "loaded" questions.

The best I can come up with is that it took 3 months give or take from the end of investigation to the releasing of the report.

For starters, not use the illegal information they received in their campaign.

what illegal information are you referencing?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/14/Obama-campaign-co-chair-attacked-Romney-conservative-group-in-2012-with-leaked-IRS-scandal-documents

Illegally obtained, rather.

honestly, that's a bunch of nothing and looks some tangential issue, with probably no validity. Just my first read I could be wrong. I guess we will see how that court case plays out.

This is just one instance. Really, though...would it surprise you? It's already a fact that they targeted one side here. Is it a stretch at all if they were caught helping the other side?

Very little that happens in Washington surprises me. It would surprise me if the IRS had a culture that allowed leaks of information to political campaigns. Is it possible it happens by some individual? Maybe. Is it wide spread, I would doubt it.

But then again I would doubt the core issues of what happened with the IRS would happen. It is a very serious issue.

 

[jonessed]

It's amazing how all this crazy stuff keeps happening under Obama's watch and he has no clue and no responsibility on any of it....

You really want the white house, the president involved in the every day operations of the IRS? In any of the operations of the IRS? Should he have automatically had no faith in the Bush appointee in charge? Should he have automatically assumed that the Bush appointee was lying to Congress and the White House?

What should the administration have done sooner?

I'm not arguing that you cannot come up with good answers to that last question. I simply cannot think of a good answer in the context of my answers to the first three "loaded" questions.

The best I can come up with is that it took 3 months give or take from the end of investigation to the releasing of the report.

For starters, not use the illegal information they received in their campaign.

what illegal information are you referencing?

The IRS was leaking private tax information about Romney donors during the election.

According to who?

these guys

http://www.nationformarriage.org/

ProPublica actually posted some information as well and they said they got it straight from the IRS. Apparently they asked for all donor lists, but only received information on conservative groups.Where it came from isn't debatable. It was information on a lot of groups that only the IRS would know.

 

[MaxThreshold]

It's amazing how all this crazy stuff keeps happening under Obama's watch and he has no clue and no responsibility on any of it....

You really want the white house, the president involved in the every day operations of the IRS? In any of the operations of the IRS? Should he have automatically had no faith in the Bush appointee in charge? Should he have automatically assumed that the Bush appointee was lying to Congress and the White House?

What should the administration have done sooner?

I'm not arguing that you cannot come up with good answers to that last question. I simply cannot think of a good answer in the context of my answers to the first three "loaded" questions.

The best I can come up with is that it took 3 months give or take from the end of investigation to the releasing of the report.

For starters, not use the illegal information they received in their campaign.

what illegal information are you referencing?

The IRS was leaking private tax information about Romney donors during the election.

According to who?

these guys

http://www.nationformarriage.org/

ProPublica actually posted some information as well and they said they got it straight from the IRS.Where it came from isn't debatable. It was information on a lot of groups that only the IRS would know.

Unfortunately, that's not going to be enough for the "Defenders of Obama" around here. You have any actual video tape footage? That MIGHT work, but I'm pretty sure that won't be enough either for them.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Unfortunately, that's not going to be enough for the "Defenders of Obama" around here. You have any actual video tape footage? That MIGHT work, but I'm pretty sure that won't be enough either for them.

What exactly is Obama guilty of [not] doing? So far there has been one unsubstantiated accusation that information was provided to and used by his campaign against Romney.