IRS Apologizes For Targeting Conservative Political Groups In 2012 Ele (1 Viewer)

[tommyboy]

i doubt Obama was initially involved in this.

I do think he was informed of it at some point in the last year though, and did nothing to stop it. This would have continued unabated had it not been for a little teensy bit of public outcry over the last year followed by the IG report which was released Tuesday, and front-runned by the IRS last Friday to try to ward off the controversy. Of course that pre-planned and staged press conference on Friday was nothing but lies, i mean outright fabrications, and we now know that the problem was widespread and long lasting.

The bigger issue to me is the lack of trust sane people should have towards their own government. This is the same government that is going to administer your health care, the same IRS that will be overlording your medical records and determining your eligibilities. Our government in the last week has been revealed as bold faced liars, from Benghazi, to Eric Holder and the DOJ investigation of the AP, and now the IRS running political operations for 2 years to tamp down the Tea Party and other conservative groups. This is an outrage, and its exactly what the founders of our country warned about, the tyranny of government. Enough is enough, shut these clowns down.

 

[timschochet]

Credit to Tommyboy, Carolina Hustler, and others for stating their belief that Obama was not directly involved in this. Obviously I disagree with you guys a lot, but I can trust you to post honest opinions. Just another reason why this forum is better than all the others, because we have very few pure shill types in here.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

... This is an outrage, and its exactly what the founders of our country warned about, the tyranny of government. Enough is enough, shut these clowns down.

Why government being inefficient is a good design and not a problem. Oh and to easily shut most of it down implement some variation of this.

 

[CrossEyed]

Credit to Tommyboy, Carolina Hustler, and others for stating their belief that Obama was not directly involved in this. Obviously I disagree with you guys a lot, but I can trust you to post honest opinions. Just another reason why this forum is better than all the others, because we have very few pure shill types in here.

You don't have to be the person directly involved to be the person responsible. The thing that amazes me is how much the leaders in this administration supposedly don't know. The only two options left at this point is that the folks at the top are either incredibly corrupt or incredibly inept.

 

[Hang 10]

Credit to Tommyboy, Carolina Hustler, and others for stating their belief that Obama was not directly involved in this. Obviously I disagree with you guys a lot, but I can trust you to post honest opinions. Just another reason why this forum is better than all the others, because we have very few pure shill types in here.

You don't have to be the person directly involved to be the person responsible.The thing that amazes me is how much the leaders in this administration supposedly don't know. The only two options left at this point is that the folks at the top are either incredibly corrupt or incredibly inept.

They want to grow the size of government, despite the fact it's already too big for them to competently manage.

 

[DocHolliday]

Credit to Tommyboy, Carolina Hustler, and others for stating their belief that Obama was not directly involved in this. Obviously I disagree with you guys a lot, but I can trust you to post honest opinions. Just another reason why this forum is better than all the others, because we have very few pure shill types in here.

You don't have to be the person directly involved to be the person responsible.The thing that amazes me is how much the leaders in this administration supposedly don't know. The only two options left at this point is that the folks at the top are either incredibly corrupt or incredibly inept.

While I agree that Obama likely did not put these illegal IRS actions in motion, he had to know about his many months ago. This was going on for years and many folks in DC knew about this. I cannot believe how many people think Obama does not know about anything that goes on in with his admin.

The senators that wrote letters to the IRS demanding that that conservative groups be scrutinized hold the smoking gun at this point. I am not saying that is why the IRS acted like it did but they had to get their orders from somewhere and that somewhere had to have some power.

 

[Hang 10]

Credit to Tommyboy, Carolina Hustler, and others for stating their belief that Obama was not directly involved in this. Obviously I disagree with you guys a lot, but I can trust you to post honest opinions. Just another reason why this forum is better than all the others, because we have very few pure shill types in here.

You don't have to be the person directly involved to be the person responsible.The thing that amazes me is how much the leaders in this administration supposedly don't know. The only two options left at this point is that the folks at the top are either incredibly corrupt or incredibly inept.

While I agree that Obama likely did not put these illegal IRS actions in motion, he had to know about his many months ago. This was going on for years and many folks in DC knew about this. I cannot believe how many people think Obama does not know about anything that goes on in with his admin.

The senators that wrote letters to the IRS demanding that that conservative groups be scrutinized hold the smoking gun at this point. I am not saying that is why the IRS acted like it did but they had to get their orders from somewhere and that somewhere had to have some power.

You don't believe Carney? Obama probably spit out his tv dinner when he heard the news on the Daily Show.

 

[jamny]

So what is the consensus thinking here?

If this changes as each new administration takes over, that would take a specific directive to make it change.

If the irs has for years targeted the right, how has this not been stopped sooner?

I haven't followed it all that closely but is it just an attitude within the organization or direct orders?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The senators that wrote letters to the IRS demanding that that conservative groups be scrutinized hold the smoking gun at this point. I am not saying that is why the IRS acted like it did but they had to get their orders from somewhere and that somewhere had to have some power.

Didn't Senator Levin identify both conservative and liberal groups that should be scrutinized?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

So what is the consensus thinking here?

If this changes as each new administration takes over, that would take a specific directive to make it change.

If the irs has for years targeted the right, how has this not been stopped sooner?

I haven't followed it all that closely but is it just an attitude within the organization or direct orders?

This particular problem wasn't an issue until 2010 when the Supreme Court decided Citizens United. Before that it was illegal for corporations to make political expenditures, so there were none of these shady 501©(4) organizations that the scrutiny was supposed to uncover.

 

[jamny]

So what is the consensus thinking here?

If this changes as each new administration takes over, that would take a specific directive to make it change.

If the irs has for years targeted the right, how has this not been stopped sooner?

I haven't followed it all that closely but is it just an attitude within the organization or direct orders?

This particular problem wasn't an issue until 2010 when the Supreme Court decided Citizens United. Before that it was illegal for corporations to make political expenditures, so there were none of these shady 501©(4) organizations that the scrutiny was supposed to uncover.

Ah, thank-you. Didn't know that. Citizens United causing more problems. So none of this extends outside of the organizations applying? Not that it makes it right for only one side being targeted but that does narrow the scope.

 

[Sand]

Credit to Tommyboy, Carolina Hustler, and others for stating their belief that Obama was not directly involved in this. Obviously I disagree with you guys a lot, but I can trust you to post honest opinions. Just another reason why this forum is better than all the others, because we have very few pure shill types in here.

Highly, highly doubtful this Obama personally had anything to do with this. He certainly didn't need this type of interference to win the election.

That doesn't exonerate him from the reality of the situation, though. If he was a capable leader he would certainly have a good look at the IRS's capability to handle the enforcement of Obamacare. This (and the accusation of the IRS stealing medical records) raises massive, massive concerns about the ability of the IRS to fairly administrate this while keeping very private information private. The fact that the person over Obamacare now was knee deep in this scandal doesn't help at all. I don't think this agency is capable.

 

[CrossEyed]

Miller's explanation is pretty much impossible for any rational thinking human being to believe.

"Foolish mistakes were made by people trying to be more efficient in their workload selection." But no partisanship.

Don't these people realize by now that it's the coverup that usually gets you in more trouble than the act itself?

 

[ichris]

This only becomes Obama's problem if he knew something before the November elections and suppressed it.

 

[soothsayer]

Just for the record, I think this is a big deal and should result in quite a lot of folks losing their jobs. Don't think Obama's involved, but still, everyone should be treated fairly by the IRS...targeting swings both ways. Fair in one party's term, fair in another. Hope this gets fixed asap and those responsible are held accountable, without unnecessary witch-hunts.

I agree for the most part. But I do want an investigation. Otherwise the truth will not revel it self..

Yeah, investigations are fine...but hopefully they're interested in the truth and not just making examples out of folks. Those who did something wrong should lose their jobs, but no one should lose it just to make a show of strength here.

All of the above. I sincerely hope that Obama was NOT involved in any of this, but I do hope that whoever was, or had knowledge of and failed to act, are investigated and justice is served.

I do continue to be amazed at the lack of general outrage over this entire thing. The tax-collecting wing of our government actively targeting groups of a particular political lean (right OR left) should frighten everyone to the core. That abuse of power, and the inability of the targeted to do anything about it, is chilling. If it happened to the Tea Party folks, it can happen to anyone.

 

[soothsayer]

This only becomes Obama's problem if he knew something before the November elections and suppressed it.

 

[timschochet]

I do continue to be amazed at the lack of general outrage over this entire thing.

Not that I consider this to be a huge scandal, but I truly believe that even if there was a huge scandal, there would be very little "general outrage". We've all been so inundated with partisan politics and attacks for so long now. It's like the boy who cried wolf. If it's a Democrat doing it, only partisan Republicans care. If it's a Republican doing it only partisan Democrats care. The rest of the public doesn't really give a #### unless it affects them personally, (or unless its really juicy in some way that will attract the National Enquirer readership- ala Monica Lewinsky.)

 

[fatkid]

I do continue to be amazed at the lack of general outrage over this entire thing.

Not that I consider this to be a huge scandal, but I truly believe that even if there was a huge scandal, there would be very little "general outrage". We've all been so inundated with partisan politics and attacks for so long now. It's like the boy who cried wolf. If it's a Democrat doing it, only partisan Republicans care. If it's a Republican doing it only partisan Democrats care. The rest of the public doesn't really give a #### unless it affects them personally, (or unless its really juicy in some way that will attract the National Enquirer readership- ala Monica Lewinsky.)

Agreed, Republicans have been trying to create a controversy over Obama and his policies since the first election. Now one comes along that could fundamentally affect how every american views the governements fairness in collecting tax money. But because everything else has been hyped, they can't move the meter anymore. They wasted all of their poltical capital and outrage on garbage.

 

[Buckfast 1]

Just for the record, I think this is a big deal and should result in quite a lot of folks losing their jobs. Don't think Obama's involved, but still, everyone should be treated fairly by the IRS...targeting swings both ways. Fair in one party's term, fair in another. Hope this gets fixed asap and those responsible are held accountable, without unnecessary witch-hunts.

I think this was clearly a failure on behalf of the IRS - both whoever was directly responsible for the audit process in the Cincinnati field office and whoever was responsible for supervising them. The enforcement of laws should never be applied in a manner that discriminates based on an individual's political identification. However, it is silly to think that Obama played any role in overseeing these type of auditing functions at an IRS field office located in Cincinnati. There are around 2.1 million employees in the executive branch, and there are bound to be significant errors by some of those federal employees from time to time. I think Obama's response to this issue has been exactly what anyone would want out of an executive -- expressing that the conduct was outrageous and inappropriate, that an investigation would be launched, that those responsible would be held accountable, and that new safeguards would be put in place to ensure that it did not happen again.

 

[dhockster]

Credit to Tommyboy, Carolina Hustler, and others for stating their belief that Obama was not directly involved in this. Obviously I disagree with you guys a lot, but I can trust you to post honest opinions. Just another reason why this forum is better than all the others, because we have very few pure shill types in here.

You don't have to be the person directly involved to be the person responsible.The thing that amazes me is how much the leaders in this administration supposedly don't know. The only two options left at this point is that the folks at the top are either incredibly corrupt or incredibly inept.

They want to grow the size of government, despite the fact it's already too big for them to competently manage.

Awesome post.

Obama says with conviction "I did not know that this was going on at the IRS" and I believe him, unless it is proven otherwise. But his words still really bother me because I ask the question "Shouldn't the President know what is going on at the IRS?". Obviously not at a micro level but certainly at a macro level. It's like Hang10 says, the government is too big for the House, the Senate, and the president to manage competently. The more we grow it, the more likely we are to be adding inefficient or at least unmanaged programs.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Credit to Tommyboy, Carolina Hustler, and others for stating their belief that Obama was not directly involved in this. Obviously I disagree with you guys a lot, but I can trust you to post honest opinions. Just another reason why this forum is better than all the others, because we have very few pure shill types in here.

You don't have to be the person directly involved to be the person responsible.The thing that amazes me is how much the leaders in this administration supposedly don't know. The only two options left at this point is that the folks at the top are either incredibly corrupt or incredibly inept.

They want to grow the size of government, despite the fact it's already too big for them to competently manage.

Awesome post.

Obama says with conviction "I did not know that this was going on at the IRS" and I believe him, unless it is proven otherwise. But his words still really bother me because I ask the question "Shouldn't the President know what is going on at the IRS?". Obviously not at a micro level but certainly at a macro level. It's like Hang10 says, the government is too big for the House, the Senate, and the president to manage competently. The more we grow it, the more likely we are to be adding inefficient or at least unmanaged programs.

What about corporations? Some of those are, like, really big. The CEO doesn't know what's going on with everyone all the time.

 

[dhockster]

Credit to Tommyboy, Carolina Hustler, and others for stating their belief that Obama was not directly involved in this. Obviously I disagree with you guys a lot, but I can trust you to post honest opinions. Just another reason why this forum is better than all the others, because we have very few pure shill types in here.

You don't have to be the person directly involved to be the person responsible.The thing that amazes me is how much the leaders in this administration supposedly don't know. The only two options left at this point is that the folks at the top are either incredibly corrupt or incredibly inept.

They want to grow the size of government, despite the fact it's already too big for them to competently manage.

Awesome post.

Obama says with conviction "I did not know that this was going on at the IRS" and I believe him, unless it is proven otherwise. But his words still really bother me because I ask the question "Shouldn't the President know what is going on at the IRS?". Obviously not at a micro level but certainly at a macro level. It's like Hang10 says, the government is too big for the House, the Senate, and the president to manage competently. The more we grow it, the more likely we are to be adding inefficient or at least unmanaged programs.

What about corporations? Some of those are, like, really big. The CEO doesn't know what's going on with everyone all the time.

Of course not. That's why I said he should know what is going on at a macro level. And to your point, some corporations get too big to be managed competently,

 

[Carolina Hustler]

This is a product of the system. It could have been either side.. In this instance the libertarian and conservative parties were wounded by unfair play. But I expect it happens all the time.

What aggravates me more is that one side gets indignant about being accused of wrong doing when they know the shenanigans that is pulled every 4 years, but then on the other hand get all up in arms when the shoe is on the other foot.

Deception, Cheating, and other nonsense is acceptable is accepted by both parties when it's not happening to them.

Democrats know this ones is on them.. Stop denying it and fix the problem..

 

[Statorama]

I do continue to be amazed at the lack of general outrage over this entire thing. Not that I consider this to be a huge scandal, but I truly believe that even if there was a huge scandal, there would be very little "general outrage". We've all been so inundated with partisan politics and attacks for so long now. It's like the boy who cried wolf. If it's a Democrat doing it, only partisan Republicans care. If it's a Republican doing it only partisan Democrats care. The rest of the public doesn't really give a #### unless it affects them personally, (or unless its really juicy in some way that will attract the National Enquirer readership- ala Monica Lewinsky.)

Sad but true.This is the most openly partisan, morally corrupt and intellectually bankrupt administration in our history, but you only have 10% who are upset by their actions, another 10% who defend them, and 80% that couldn't care less about it since it doesn't affect them directly.

 

[jamny]

Stop denying it and fix the problem..

You mean like firing the guy in charge of the whole thing, for starters?

The guy that seems to have no involvement and was scheduled to leave the position in a month or so? Seems like a scapegoat to me. If he was fired, what did he do? We should be getting some specifics.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Stop denying it and fix the problem..

You mean like firing the guy in charge of the whole thing, for starters?

The guy who was already leaving? That's a pacifying gesture...

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Stop denying it and fix the problem..

You mean like firing the guy in charge of the whole thing, for starters?

The guy that seems to have no involvement and was scheduled to leave the position in a month or so? Seems like a scapegoat to me. If he was fired, what did he do? We should be getting some specifics.

this^

 

[Tom Hagen]

The is an article on Fox News regarding some Tea Party groups preparing to sue the IRS. Can one of the FFA lawyers explain why sovereign immunity would not apply in this case. I didn't think you could sue the federal government.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Stop denying it and fix the problem..

You mean like firing the guy in charge of the whole thing, for starters?

The guy who was already leaving? That's a pacifying gesture...

Is it possible that he was already leaving and was the person who needed to be fired?

 

[shader]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/us/politics/irs-scandal-congressional-hearings.html?hp&_r=2&

 

[Buckfast 1]

The is an article on Fox News regarding some Tea Party groups preparing to sue the IRS. Can one of the FFA lawyers explain why sovereign immunity would not apply in this case. I didn't think you could sue the federal government.

I suppose they could try to sue under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the right of association under the First Amendment. I'm not sure whether that would be successful or not, but it would probably get them in the door past sovereign immunity.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Stop denying it and fix the problem..

You mean like firing the guy in charge of the whole thing, for starters?

The guy who was already leaving? That's a pacifying gesture...

Is it possible that he was already leaving and was the person who needed to be fired?

First off, the guy wasn't "fired".. He resigned... Sorry, no kudo points for the administration..

As for your question, that's possible.. But certainly that doesn't answer any questions. "top guy in charge left, nothing more to see here".. Yea right.. I'm not content with the democratic party just lopping off the low hanging fruit and calling it done..

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The is an article on Fox News regarding some Tea Party groups preparing to sue the IRS. Can one of the FFA lawyers explain why sovereign immunity would not apply in this case. I didn't think you could sue the federal government.

Within the inspector general's report it states that the IRS has 270 days to do its thing. After that time the organizations can sue for ??? (been 3 days). (I'm not a lawyer.)

 

[Carolina Hustler]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/us/politics/irs-scandal-congressional-hearings.html?hp&_r=2&

Treasury Knew of I.R.S. Inquiry in 2012, Official Says

Hmm...

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So what is the consensus thinking here?

If this changes as each new administration takes over, that would take a specific directive to make it change.

If the irs has for years targeted the right, how has this not been stopped sooner?

I haven't followed it all that closely but is it just an attitude within the organization or direct orders?

This particular problem wasn't an issue until 2010 when the Supreme Court decided Citizens United. Before that it was illegal for corporations to make political expenditures, so there were none of these shady 501©(4) organizations that the scrutiny was supposed to uncover.

Ah, thank-you. Didn't know that. Citizens United causing more problems. So none of this extends outside of the organizations applying? Not that it makes it right for only one side being targeted but that does narrow the scope.

For the most part only one side applied for the status. Liberal groups tended to file under that status with their tax reporting while conservative groups tended to seek out the status in advanced. (One of my earlier posts has a link for this.)

 

[MaxThreshold]

This only becomes Obama's problem if he knew something before the November elections and suppressed it.

That's some great foresight on your part. And from the NY Times itself. At least progressives can't bash the source.

...disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

 

[MaxThreshold]

This only becomes Obama's problem if he knew something before the November elections and suppressed it.

Nonsense. This is already Obama's problem for the people who want to blame him for everything already.

The NY Times says that you're looking pretty foolish right about now.

...

disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

This only becomes Obama's problem if he knew something before the November elections and suppressed it.

Nonsense. This is already Obama's problem for the people who want to blame him for everything already.

The NY Times says that you're looking pretty foolish right about now.

...

disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

They were told that an audit was being performed. They were not told of any conclusion per you own link.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

This only becomes Obama's problem if he knew something before the November elections and suppressed it.

Nonsense. This is already Obama's problem for the people who want to blame him for everything already.

The NY Times says that

Nonsense. This is already Obama's problem for the people who want to blame him for everything already.

The NY Times says that you're looking pretty foolish right about now.

...

[color=rgb(0,0,0);font-family:georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif;font-size:15px;]disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.[/color]

They were told that an audit was being performed. They were not told of any conclusion per you own link.

right about now.

...

disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

They were told that an audit was being performed. They were not told of any conclusion per you own link.

Umm...

Still, the inspector general’s testimony will most likely fuel efforts by Congressional Republicans to show that Obama administration officials knew of efforts to single out conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status for additional scrutiny, but did not reveal that knowledge during President Obama’s re-election campaign.

 

[jamny]

Stop denying it and fix the problem..

You mean like firing the guy in charge of the whole thing, for starters?

The guy who was already leaving? That's a pacifying gesture...

Is it possible that he was already leaving and was the person who needed to be fired?

It's possible. So what did he do. He wouldn't admit to any guilt today.

 

[MaxThreshold]

This only becomes Obama's problem if he knew something before the November elections and suppressed it.

Nonsense. This is already Obama's problem for the people who want to blame him for everything already.

The NY Times says that you're looking pretty foolish right about now.

>

...

disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.lockquote>They were told that an audit was being performed. They were not told of any conclusion per you own link.

Do you think he just said "I'm doing and audit" and left it at that? Don't you think he provided any details?

 

[pittstownkiller]

Stop denying it and fix the problem..

You mean like firing the guy in charge of the whole thing, for starters?

The guy who was already leaving? That's a pacifying gesture...

Is it possible that he was already leaving and was the person who needed to be fired?

Yes, it is possible, but it is more likely that more people need to be fired.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

This only becomes Obama's problem if he knew something before the November elections and suppressed it.

Nonsense. This is already Obama's problem for the people who want to blame him for everything already.

The NY Times says that you're looking pretty foolish right about now.

>>

...disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.lockquote>lockquote>

They were told that an audit was being performed. They were not told of any conclusion per you own link.

Do you think he just said "I'm doing and audit" and left it at that? Don't you think he provided any details?

No! He told the new director that these audit were in process. According to today's testimony no details were disclosed outside of the IRS by the IG until Tuesday. Per testimony today by Miller in your link -
When Republicans asked Mr. Miller whether the targeting of conservative groups was divulged to Obama administration officials outside the I.R.S., Mr. Miller said “that would be a violation of law.”

“I would be shocked” if that occurred, he said.

I wouldn't have thought it would be necessary shocking at this point for the IRS to have divulged this information, but for the IG?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...but it is more likely that more people need to be fired.

Of course, but one of the safe guards of being a civil service employee is that it is not that simple.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

This only becomes Obama's problem if he knew something before the November elections and suppressed it.

Nonsense. This is already Obama's problem for the people who want to blame him for everything already.

The NY Times says that you're looking pretty foolish right about now.

...

disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

They were told that an audit was being performed. They were not told of any conclusion per you own link.

Umm...

Still, the inspector general’s testimony will most likely fuel efforts by Congressional Republicans to show that Obama administration officials knew of efforts to single out conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status for additional scrutiny, but did not reveal that knowledge during President Obama’s re-election campaign.

So? It is not like it takes much to get the House GOPers in a tizzy about nonsense.

 

[pittstownkiller]

...but it is more likely that more people need to be fired.

Of course, but one of the safe guards of being a civil service employee is that it is not that simple.

...and it should be. Building a case against someone (such as civil service employee) requires investigation, usually involving the environment that the office was run in; I hope it is transparent, thorough, and contains people that rat each other out.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...but it is more likely that more people need to be fired.

Of course, but one of the safe guards of being a civil service employee is that it is not that simple.

...and it should be. Building a case against someone (such as civil service employee) requires investigation, usually involving the environment that the office was run in; I hope it is transparent, thorough, and contains people that rat each other out.

Oh, I think heads are going to roll. It will just take a bit of time. (I'm sure that more resume work was done this week in Cincinnati than scrutinizing applications.)

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

This only becomes Obama's problem if he knew something before the November elections and suppressed it.

Nonsense. This is already Obama's problem for the people who want to blame him for everything already.

The NY Times says that you're looking pretty foolish right about now.

...

>disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

lockquote>>

They were told that an audit was being performed. They were not told of any conclusion per you own link.

Umm...>Still, the inspector general’s testimony will most likely fuel efforts by Congressional Republicans to show that Obama administration officials knew of efforts to single out conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status for additional scrutiny, but did not reveal that knowledge during President Obama’s re-election ca

mpaign.

So? It is not like it takes much to get the House GOPers in a tizzy about nonsense.

Nonsense? It's clear the White house knew the alleged problem before/during the election

So they knew there was an alleged problem? So?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Do you think he just said "I'm doing and audit" and left it at that? Don't you think he provided any details?

No! He told the new director that these audit were in process. According to today's testimony no details were disclosed outside of the IRS by the IG until Tuesday. Per testimony today by Miller in your link -
When Republicans asked Mr. Miller whether the targeting of conservative groups was divulged to Obama administration officials outside the I.R.S., Mr. Miller said “that would be a violation of law.”

“I would be shocked” if that occurred, he said.

I wouldn't have thought it would be necessary shocking at this point for the IRS to have divulged this information, but for the IG?

They were aware of the allegations, they were not made aware of the conclusion...

WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department’s inspector general told senior Treasury officials in June 2012 he was auditing the Internal Revenue Service’s screening of politically active organizations seeking tax exemptions, disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

At the first Congressional hearing into the I.R.S. scandal, J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration, told members of the House Ways and Means Committee that he informed the Treasury’s general counsel of his audit on June 4, and Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin “shortly thereafter.”

It remained unclear how much the disclosure would affect the broader debate over the I.R.S.'s problems. Complaints from Tea Party groups that the I.R.S. was singling them out became public in 2012, through media accounts.

Mr. George told Treasury officials about the allegation as part of a routine briefing about ongoing audits he would be conducting in the coming year, and he did not tell the officials of his conclusions that the targeting had been improper, he said.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

This only becomes Obama's problem if he knew something before the November elections and suppressed it.

Nonsense. This is already Obama's problem for the people who want to blame him for everything already.

The NY Times says that you're looking pretty foolish right about now.

...

They were told that an audit was being performed. They were not told of any conclusion per you own link.

Umm...
>Still, the inspector general’s testimony will most likely fuel efforts by Congressional Republicans to show that Obama administration officials knew of efforts to single out conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status for additional scrutiny, but did not reveal that knowledge during President Obama’s re-election ca

mpaign.

So? It is not like it takes much to get the House GOPers in a tizzy about nonsense.

Nonsense? It's clear the White house knew the alleged problem before/during the election

So they knew there was an alleged problem? So?

They knew what the allegations were, the reason for the audit.. They were not aware of the conclusion of the audit.. Whether the allegations were true or not..