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

[Statorama]

In this case, not only do we have no evidence of deliberate intent, there is plenty of evidence that it was NOT deliberate- for instance, the fact that Tea Party groups actually made up a minority of the total groups being investigated.

Oh right, I forgot a about all the liberal groups that had tea party and patriot in their names who were raked over the coals and asked to provide donor lists. My bad

 

[Slapdash]

In this case, not only do we have no evidence of deliberate intent, there is plenty of evidence that it was NOT deliberate- for instance, the fact that Tea Party groups actually made up a minority of the total groups being investigated.

Oh right, I forgot a about all the liberal groups that had tea party and patriot in their names who were raked over the coals and asked to provide donor lists. My bad

And yet there were liberal group applications denied, but not conservative ones.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

In this case, not only do we have no evidence of deliberate intent, there is plenty of evidence that it was NOT deliberate- for instance, the fact that Tea Party groups actually made up a minority of the total groups being investigated.

Oh right, I forgot a about all the liberal groups that had tea party and patriot in their names who were raked over the coals and asked to provide donor lists. My bad

And yet there were liberal group applications denied, but not conservative ones.

link?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-progressive-groups/2158831/

IRS approved liberal groups while Tea Party in limbo

Yea, 1 liberal group was denied, probably for good cause.. The conservative groups on the other hand may not have been denied, likely because there was no justification for it, rather they were force to do tenuous research and provide document after document, were subject to un called for scrutiny on unrelated issues, and ultimately were pushed off about as far as the IRS could possibly push them off unless they were actually breaking the rules..

 

[GroveDiesel]

The evidence seems to indicate that there is no chance it was just a few low level employees. The IRS structure itself basically makes this impossible that it was just a few front line employees.

http://m.fox19.com/autojuice?targetUrl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.fox19.com%2fstory%2f22380127%2freality-check-exclusive-cincinnati-agent-giving-orders-in-irs-scandal

ETA: even if it were low level employees, it still wouldn't explain the coverup over the past 2 years by officials higher up that we now know DID know about this stuff going on and lied to Congress.

 

[Slapdash]

In this case, not only do we have no evidence of deliberate intent, there is plenty of evidence that it was NOT deliberate- for instance, the fact that Tea Party groups actually made up a minority of the total groups being investigated.

Oh right, I forgot a about all the liberal groups that had tea party and patriot in their names who were raked over the coals and asked to provide donor lists. My bad

And yet there were liberal group applications denied, but not conservative ones.

link?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2013-05-15/irs-sent-same-letter-to-democrats-that-fed-tea-party-row.html

IRS Sent Same Letter to Democrats That Fed Tea Party Row

By Julie Bykowicz and Jonathan D. Salant - May 14, 2013

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

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

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

In a statement late yesterday, the tax agency said it had pooled together the politically active nonpartisan applicants -- including a “minority” that were identified because of their names. “It is also important to understand that the group of centralized cases included organizations of all political views,” the IRS said in its statement.

President Barack Obama, in a statement last night, called the IRS employees’ actions “intolerable” and directed Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew to hold “those responsible for these failures accountable.”

Tax (GDP%NPOT) agency officials told lawmakers in a briefing yesterday that 471 groups received additional scrutiny, a total that indicates a crackdown on politically active nonprofit groups that extends beyond the Tea Party outfits.

 

[timschochet]

The evidence seems to indicate that there is no chance it was just a few low level employees. The IRS structure itself basically makes this impossible that it was just a few front line employees.

http://m.fox19.com/autojuice?targetUrl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.fox19.com%2fstory%2f22380127%2freality-check-exclusive-cincinnati-agent-giving-orders-in-irs-scandal

This appears to be a good argument as to why higher-ups may have been involved. Guess we'll find out.

That being said, we're still miles away from deliberate intent. Find a way to prove deliberate intent, and I guarantee you that's when the nation (or at least enough of us) will sit up and take notice. Until then it's just another example in an endless list of government malfeasance.

 

[GroveDiesel]

The evidence seems to indicate that there is no chance it was just a few low level employees. The IRS structure itself basically makes this impossible that it was just a few front line employees.

http://m.fox19.com/autojuice?targetUrl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.fox19.com%2fstory%2f22380127%2freality-check-exclusive-cincinnati-agent-giving-orders-in-irs-scandal

This appears to be a good argument as to why higher-ups may have been involved. Guess we'll find out.That being said, we're still miles away from deliberate intent. Find a way to prove deliberate intent, and I guarantee you that's when the nation (or at least enough of us) will sit up and take notice. Until then it's just another example in an endless list of government malfeasance.

I seriously doubt there was deliberate intent. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be outraged at this level of screwup though and it certainly serves as legitimate proof that we shouldn't just trust the government to do things correctly. And as they say, often the coverup is worse than the crime. It will be interesting to see just how far up the coverup went. We know now even the Chief of Staff knew a long time ago. That's bad.

 

[Statorama]

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

EXACTLY. The point you're missing is that tea party groups were WRONGFULLY PERSECUTED, based solely on keywords. The only liberal groups they rounded up were actually doing illegal crap and their applications were rejected.

Once the IRS knew the jig was up they started targeting some liberal groups to make it look even.

This is about wrongfully targeting conservative groups simply for being conservative, and harassing/bullying them. Read that quote above again. NONE of the Republican groups have said their applications were rejected. THEY WEREN'T doing anything wrong except the crime of being conservative during an Obama reign of power.

 

[Statorama]

Holly Paz, the director of exempt organizations, rulings and agreements division of the IRS donated $2,000 to the Obama campaign in 2008

 

[Carolina Hustler]

In this case, not only do we have no evidence of deliberate intent, there is plenty of evidence that it was NOT deliberate- for instance, the fact that Tea Party groups actually made up a minority of the total groups being investigated.

Oh right, I forgot a about all the liberal groups that had tea party and patriot in their names who were raked over the coals and asked to provide donor lists. My bad

And yet there were liberal group applications denied, but not conservative ones.

link?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2013-05-15/irs-sent-same-letter-to-democrats-that-fed-tea-party-row.html

IRS Sent Same Letter to Democrats That Fed Tea Party Row

By Julie Bykowicz and Jonathan D. Salant - May 14, 2013

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

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

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

In a statement late yesterday, the tax agency said it had pooled together the politically active nonpartisan applicants -- including a “minority” that were identified because of their names. “It is also important to understand that the group of centralized cases included organizations of all political views,” the IRS said in its statement.

President Barack Obama, in a statement last night, called the IRS employees’ actions “intolerable” and directed Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew to hold “those responsible for these failures accountable.”

Tax (GDP%NPOT) agency officials told lawmakers in a briefing yesterday that 471 groups received additional scrutiny, a total that indicates a crackdown on politically active nonprofit groups that extends beyond the Tea Party outfits.

You understand the difference in 3 liberal groups getting investigated, and one getting denied, and an incomparable amount of conservative groups were scrutinized and none of them were found to be doing anything wrong..

This information suggests to me they should have been focusing more on liberals rather than conservatives, if 1 in 3 are found to be breaking the rules 0 out of 100 (not sure of the #) conservatives were found breaking rules

33% of liberals

0% of conservatives

^ found to be breaking the rules in regards to tax exempt policies and politics..

Yet the conservatives garnered a disproportionate amount of the scrutiny

 

[Slapdash]

In this case, not only do we have no evidence of deliberate intent, there is plenty of evidence that it was NOT deliberate- for instance, the fact that Tea Party groups actually made up a minority of the total groups being investigated.

Oh right, I forgot a about all the liberal groups that had tea party and patriot in their names who were raked over the coals and asked to provide donor lists. My bad

And yet there were liberal group applications denied, but not conservative ones.

link?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2013-05-15/irs-sent-same-letter-to-democrats-that-fed-tea-party-row.html

IRS Sent Same Letter to Democrats That Fed Tea Party Row

By Julie Bykowicz and Jonathan D. Salant - May 14, 2013

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

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

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

In a statement late yesterday, the tax agency said it had pooled together the politically active nonpartisan applicants -- including a “minority” that were identified because of their names. “It is also important to understand that the group of centralized cases included organizations of all political views,” the IRS said in its statement.

President Barack Obama, in a statement last night, called the IRS employees’ actions “intolerable” and directed Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew to hold “those responsible for these failures accountable.”

Tax (GDP%NPOT) agency officials told lawmakers in a briefing yesterday that 471 groups received additional scrutiny, a total that indicates a crackdown on politically active nonprofit groups that extends beyond the Tea Party outfits.

You understand the difference in 3 liberal groups getting investigated, and one getting denied, and an incomparable amount of conservative groups were scrutinized and none of them were found to be doing anything wrong..This information suggests to me they should have been focusing more on liberals rather than conservatives, if 1 in 3 are found to be breaking the rules 0 out of 100 (not sure of the #) conservatives were found breaking rules

33% of liberals

0% of conservatives

^ found to be breaking the rules in regards to tax exempt policies and politics..

Yet the conservatives garnered a disproportionate amount of the scrutiny

Do you have some actual numbers to back this up or are you just making #### up?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

This information suggests to me they should have been focusing more on liberals rather than conservatives, if 1 in 3 are found to be breaking the rules 0 out of 100 (not sure of the #) conservatives were found breaking rules 33% of liberals0% of conservatives ^ found to be breaking the rules in regards to tax exempt policies and politics.. Yet the conservatives garnered a disproportionate amount of the scrutiny

Do you have some actual numbers to back this up or are you just making #### up?

You said yourself that 1 liberal group was denied vs 0 conservative groups.. Now I have to prove your #'s?

 

[Slapdash]

This information suggests to me they should have been focusing more on liberals rather than conservatives, if 1 in 3 are found to be breaking the rules 0 out of 100 (not sure of the #) conservatives were found breaking rules 33% of liberals0% of conservatives ^ found to be breaking the rules in regards to tax exempt policies and politics.. Yet the conservatives garnered a disproportionate amount of the scrutiny

Do you have some actual numbers to back this up or are you just making #### up?

You said yourself that 1 liberal group was denied vs 0 conservative groups.. Now I have to prove your #'s?

I haven't seen any links to conservative groups being denied, but thanks for admitting you are just making #### up....again.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

This information suggests to me they should have been focusing more on liberals rather than conservatives, if 1 in 3 are found to be breaking the rules 0 out of 100 (not sure of the #) conservatives were found breaking rules

33% of liberals

0% of conservatives

^ found to be breaking the rules in regards to tax exempt policies and politics..

Yet the conservatives garnered a disproportionate amount of the scrutiny

Do you have some actual numbers to back this up or are you just making #### up?

You said yourself that 1 liberal group was denied vs 0 conservative groups.. Now I have to prove your #'s?

I haven't seen any links to conservative groups being denied, but thanks for admitting you are just making #### up....again.

I was just using your information

"There were liberal groups denied, but no conservative groups"

And somehow I'm the one making stuff up..

You said your self, in other words that 0% of conservative groups were denied, which means they weren't breaking the rules.

You said liberal groups were denied, which means they were breaking the rules..

This is your information buddy.. Sorry I had to repeat it back to you..

 

[Sand]

In this case, not only do we have no evidence of deliberate intent, there is plenty of evidence that it was NOT deliberate- for instance, the fact that Tea Party groups actually made up a minority of the total groups being investigated.

Oh right, I forgot a about all the liberal groups that had tea party and patriot in their names who were raked over the coals and asked to provide donor lists. My bad

And yet there were liberal group applications denied, but not conservative ones.

Why argue about the validity of the claims when the administration has condemned the actions? This part is already in evidence. The IRS deliberately targeted conservative groups. This part isn't moving backwards.

All there is now is to find out how high this went. My gut says Valerie, but she'll never be caught. It will end up with some patsy in the middle (once we dispose of this ridiculous idea that it was rogue low level staffers - that is laughable).

 

[Carolina Hustler]

In this case, not only do we have no evidence of deliberate intent, there is plenty of evidence that it was NOT deliberate- for instance, the fact that Tea Party groups actually made up a minority of the total groups being investigated.

Oh right, I forgot a about all the liberal groups that had tea party and patriot in their names who were raked over the coals and asked to provide donor lists. My bad

And yet there were liberal group applications denied, but not conservative ones.

Why argue about the validity of the claims when the administration has condemned the actions? This part is already in evidence. The IRS deliberately targeted conservative groups. This part isn't moving backwards.

All there is now is to find out how high this went. My gut says Valerie, but she'll never be caught. It will end up with some patsy in the middle (once we dispose of this ridiculous idea that it was rogue low level staffers - that is laughable).

who?

 

[Slapdash]

This information suggests to me they should have been focusing more on liberals rather than conservatives, if 1 in 3 are found to be breaking the rules 0 out of 100 (not sure of the #) conservatives were found breaking rules

33% of liberals

0% of conservatives

^ found to be breaking the rules in regards to tax exempt policies and politics..

Yet the conservatives garnered a disproportionate amount of the scrutiny

Do you have some actual numbers to back this up or are you just making #### up?

You said yourself that 1 liberal group was denied vs 0 conservative groups.. Now I have to prove your #'s?

I haven't seen any links to conservative groups being denied, but thanks for admitting you are just making #### up....again.

I was just using your information

"There were liberal groups denied, but no conservative groups"

And somehow I'm the one making stuff up..

You said your self, in other words that 0% of conservative groups were denied, which means they weren't breaking the rules.

You said liberal groups were denied, which means they were breaking the rules..

This is your information buddy.. Sorry I had to repeat it back to you..

I'm asking where you are getting your numbers about the total number of liberal vs conservative groups targeted.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

This information suggests to me they should have been focusing more on liberals rather than conservatives, if 1 in 3 are found to be breaking the rules 0 out of 100 (not sure of the #) conservatives were found breaking rules

33% of liberals

0% of conservatives

^ found to be breaking the rules in regards to tax exempt policies and politics..

Yet the conservatives garnered a disproportionate amount of the scrutiny

Do you have some actual numbers to back this up or are you just making #### up?

You said yourself that 1 liberal group was denied vs 0 conservative groups.. Now I have to prove your #'s?

I haven't seen any links to conservative groups being denied, but thanks for admitting you are just making #### up....again.

I was just using your information

"There were liberal groups denied, but no conservative groups"

And somehow I'm the one making stuff up..

You said your self, in other words that 0% of conservative groups were denied, which means they weren't breaking the rules.

You said liberal groups were denied, which means they were breaking the rules..

This is your information buddy.. Sorry I had to repeat it back to you..

I'm asking where you are getting your numbers about the total number of liberal vs conservative groups targeted.

I specificly said:

(not sure of the #)

And I was basing the numbers on your post..

Now you debate the #'s.. You made the claim buddy.. If anyone is making stuff up, it's you..

 

[Slapdash]

This information suggests to me they should have been focusing more on liberals rather than conservatives, if 1 in 3 are found to be breaking the rules 0 out of 100 (not sure of the #) conservatives were found breaking rules

33% of liberals

0% of conservatives

^ found to be breaking the rules in regards to tax exempt policies and politics..

Yet the conservatives garnered a disproportionate amount of the scrutiny

Do you have some actual numbers to back this up or are you just making #### up?

You said yourself that 1 liberal group was denied vs 0 conservative groups.. Now I have to prove your #'s?

I haven't seen any links to conservative groups being denied, but thanks for admitting you are just making #### up....again.

I was just using your information

"There were liberal groups denied, but no conservative groups"

And somehow I'm the one making stuff up..

You said your self, in other words that 0% of conservative groups were denied, which means they weren't breaking the rules.

You said liberal groups were denied, which means they were breaking the rules..

This is your information buddy.. Sorry I had to repeat it back to you..

I'm asking where you are getting your numbers about the total number of liberal vs conservative groups targeted.

I specificly said:

>(not sure of the #)

And I was basing the numbers on your post..

Now you debate the #'s.. You made the claim buddy.. If anyone is making stuff up, it's you..

The only claim I made is that a liberal group's application was denied while I have not seen anyone claim a conservative one was denied. Then you started spouting off about the total number of applications examined and making up percentages. That was no where in my post.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The only claim I made is that a liberal group's application was denied while I have not seen anyone claim a conservative one was denied. Then you started spouting off about the total number of applications examined and making up percentages. That was no where in my post.

Ok, some revisionist history going on here... It was just a moment ago buddy, read your own posts..

You said:

And yet there were liberal group applications denied, but not conservative ones.

That means 0%..

And I said in response:

if 1 in 3 are found to be breaking the rules 0 out of 100 (not sure of the #)

And then went on to place theoretical %'s on those #'s..

Then you accused me of making stuff up and then went on to say you didn't know if any conservative groups were denied..

Seems you just outed yourself for making stuff up and in the process have implicated liberals for trying to break the rules conservatives were accused of breaking...

 

[Slapdash]

The only claim I made is that a liberal group's application was denied while I have not seen anyone claim a conservative one was denied. Then you started spouting off about the total number of applications examined and making up percentages. That was no where in my post.

Ok, some revisionist history going on here... It was just a moment ago buddy, read your own posts..

You said:

>And yet there were liberal group applications denied, but not conservative ones.

That means 0%..

And I said in response:

if 1 in 3 are found to be breaking the rules 0 out of 100 (not sure of the #)

And then went on to place theoretical %'s on those #'s..

Then you accused me of making stuff up and then went on to say you didn't know if any conservative groups were denied..

Seems you just outed yourself for making stuff up and in the process have implicated liberals for trying to break the rules conservatives were accused of breaking...

 

[Carolina Hustler]

You just made a complete ### of yourself... I'm laughing too...

 

[Slapdash]

You just made a complete ### of yourself... I'm laughing too...

Your delusion is quite impressive, are you posting from a padded room somewhere?

 

[ArbyMelt]

Lerner's attorney needs to be fired ASAP.

 

[Blue Team]

I swear to god Slapdash, if you implicate liberals one more time I'm kicking you off the team!

 

[tommyboy]

Director Shulman visited white house 118 times in two years uses "easter egg roll" as an excuse

https://mobile.twitter.com/markknoller/status/337232424515817472

 

[jonessed]

Lerner's attorney needs to be fired ASAP.

Right after Lerner.

 

[Sand]

In this case, not only do we have no evidence of deliberate intent, there is plenty of evidence that it was NOT deliberate- for instance, the fact that Tea Party groups actually made up a minority of the total groups being investigated.

Oh right, I forgot a about all the liberal groups that had tea party and patriot in their names who were raked over the coals and asked to provide donor lists. My bad

And yet there were liberal group applications denied, but not conservative ones.

Why argue about the validity of the claims when the administration has condemned the actions? This part is already in evidence. The IRS deliberately targeted conservative groups. This part isn't moving backwards.

All there is now is to find out how high this went. My gut says Valerie, but she'll never be caught. It will end up with some patsy in the middle (once we dispose of this ridiculous idea that it was rogue low level staffers - that is laughable).

who?

Valerie Jarrett. By power in the White House she is right at the top.

 

[ichris]

No one is talking about the targeted organizations testifying at a House hearing today?

 

[Politician Spock]

I don't understand why a denied application has any applicability. Should it have been approved? If not, it was denied because it merited being denied. Whether it was conservative or liberal shouldn't matter.

 

[General Malaise]

I laughed.

 

[timschochet]

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/06/05/the-exploding-irs-scandal/

Yesterday’s congressional hearings turned out to be a disaster for the IRS and, more broadly, for the Obama administration.

We’re now hearing from real people (see

) who are telling real stories about real harassment. It’s all quite chilling, from efforts to intimidate donors and illegally releasing tax returns, to pressuring pro-life groups not to protest outside of Planned Parenthood organizations, to demanding to know about the prayer activities of citizens. This kind of abuse of power, used in this manner, is something I can’t recall having seen in my three decades in politics. And the Obama administration’s first line of defense, which is that this was being conducted by rogue elements within the IRS, is collapsing. It’s clear that the intimidation tactics were widespread, coordinated and not confined to a few mid-level bureaucrats.

We’re still in the early stages of this scandal, but it seems obvious to me that it will do substantial and sustained political damage. The fact that the president, his top lieutenants and Senate Democrats set the tone for what has occurred–that they created and encouraged a culture of intimidation–is clear evidence that this scandal reaches far beyond the IRS. That happened to be the agency tasked with executing the acts of intimidation. But the inspiration for the abuse of power came from other, political quarters. We’ll simply need to follow the various leads to see where this all ends up. I’m still not sure if people fully realize just how massive this scandal is. But before it’s over, they will.

I should add that press bias continues to manifest itself in this story, with some journalists even declaring that Representative Darrell Issa’s attacks on White House press secretary Jay Carney make them more disinclined to cover the scandal. What an odd journalistic standard that is. Whatever one thinks of Mr. Issa and his comments about Jay Carney being a “paid liar”–and I think they’re unwise and unfortunate coming from a committee chairman–this scandal merits press scrutiny. And if this were happening under a conservative president–if those being targeted by the IRS were black, or gay, or liberal–I can promise you the coverage would be intense and wall-to-wall regardless of how many stupid things were said by Democratic members of Congress. Journalists would be falling all over themselves covering this story. Right now they’re not. I’ll leave it to discerning readers to figure out why.

 

[timschochet]

I've sort of been dismissing this scandal but that article gave me pause. Perhaps this is more serious than I originally thought...

 

[drummer]

So again, anybody focusing on the those so-called political organizations who were trying to game the IRS?

 

[drummer]

I've sort of been dismissing this scandal but that article gave me pause. Perhaps this is more serious than I originally thought...

Oof.

 

[timschochet]

I've sort of been dismissing this scandal but that article gave me pause. Perhaps this is more serious than I originally thought...

Oof.

Why "oof"?

I normally almost always dismiss these sorts of scandals. But who knows? If Congress can find a link to the Obama administration, then there's something there. If they can't, then there isn't. But at this point, it's not unreasonable to be concerned.

 

[jon_mx]

Did Watergate really help Nixon get erected.

 

[timschochet]

Did Watergate really help Nixon get erected.

 

[drummer]

I've sort of been dismissing this scandal but that article gave me pause. Perhaps this is more serious than I originally thought...

Oof.

Why "oof"?

I normally almost always dismiss these sorts of scandals. But who knows? If Congress can find a link to the Obama administration, then there's something there. If they can't, then there isn't. But at this point, it's not unreasonable to be concerned.

I'd be more concerned with these pseudo political organizations - who so happened to crop up because of this past Election cycle - trying to game the IRS. The IRS shouldn't have to be put in a situation like this in the first place. If there was real campaign finance reform as well as tax reform, we may not have this conversation in the first place.

But there is no way any politician would want to turn off any $$ spigot. The IRS should follow the money. That's their job.

 

[jon_mx]

Did Watergate really help Nixon get erected.

Insert Disallowed original unsure gif here

He was not called Tricky **** for nothing.

 

[timschochet]

I've sort of been dismissing this scandal but that article gave me pause. Perhaps this is more serious than I originally thought...

Oof.

Why "oof"?

I normally almost always dismiss these sorts of scandals. But who knows? If Congress can find a link to the Obama administration, then there's something there. If they can't, then there isn't. But at this point, it's not unreasonable to be concerned.

I'd be more concerned with these pseudo political organizations - who so happened to crop up because of this past Election cycle - trying to game the IRS. The IRS shouldn't have to be put in a situation like this in the first place. If there was real campaign finance reform as well as tax reform, we may not have this conversation in the first place.

But there is no way any politician would want to turn off any $$ spigot. The IRS should follow the money. That's their job.

You seem to be dismissing what appears to be at the heart of the issue. As far as I can see, there are two basic claims being made by conservatives here:

1. The IRS targeted conservative groups in an extraordinary way, using methods and focus which they have not applied in the past, and which were not applied against non-conservative groups, some of which were illegal.

2. The IRS did this at the direction of the Obama White House.

If there is evidence that these two points are at all true, then your points regarding the overall state of campaign finance reform are irrelevant, IMO.

 

[drummer]

I've sort of been dismissing this scandal but that article gave me pause. Perhaps this is more serious than I originally thought...

Oof.

Why "oof"?

I normally almost always dismiss these sorts of scandals. But who knows? If Congress can find a link to the Obama administration, then there's something there. If they can't, then there isn't. But at this point, it's not unreasonable to be concerned.

I'd be more concerned with these pseudo political organizations - who so happened to crop up because of this past Election cycle - trying to game the IRS. The IRS shouldn't have to be put in a situation like this in the first place. If there was real campaign finance reform as well as tax reform, we may not have this conversation in the first place.

But there is no way any politician would want to turn off any $$ spigot. The IRS should follow the money. That's their job.

You seem to be dismissing what appears to be at the heart of the issue. As far as I can see, there are two basic claims being made by conservatives here:

1. The IRS targeted conservative groups in an extraordinary way, using methods and focus which they have not applied in the past, and which were not applied against non-conservative groups, some of which were illegal.

2. The IRS did this at the direction of the Obama White House.

If there is evidence that these two points are at all true, then your points regarding the overall state of campaign finance reform are irrelevant, IMO.

You're totally missing the point of what these again "pseudo political organizations" were trying to do in the first place.

ETA: you posted "if these all are true". So something that isn't proven you find 'relevant'. That's pure squish.

 

[timschochet]

I've sort of been dismissing this scandal but that article gave me pause. Perhaps this is more serious than I originally thought...

Oof.

Why "oof"?

I normally almost always dismiss these sorts of scandals. But who knows? If Congress can find a link to the Obama administration, then there's something there. If they can't, then there isn't. But at this point, it's not unreasonable to be concerned.

I'd be more concerned with these pseudo political organizations - who so happened to crop up because of this past Election cycle - trying to game the IRS. The IRS shouldn't have to be put in a situation like this in the first place. If there was real campaign finance reform as well as tax reform, we may not have this conversation in the first place.

But there is no way any politician would want to turn off any $$ spigot. The IRS should follow the money. That's their job.

You seem to be dismissing what appears to be at the heart of the issue. As far as I can see, there are two basic claims being made by conservatives here:

1. The IRS targeted conservative groups in an extraordinary way, using methods and focus which they have not applied in the past, and which were not applied against non-conservative groups, some of which were illegal.

2. The IRS did this at the direction of the Obama White House.

If there is evidence that these two points are at all true, then your points regarding the overall state of campaign finance reform are irrelevant, IMO.

You're totally missing the point of what these again "pseudo political organizations" were trying to do in the first place.

ETA: you posted "if these all are true". So something that isn't proven you find 'relevant'. That's pure squish.

Are you related to Todd Andrews?

At this point I have no idea if it's relevant or not. As I wrote, I was dismissive but that piece from Commentary makes me hesitate. Could there actually be more to this? If I had to wager, I would say no; I don't believe any connection will ever be established between the IRS and the White House, and that should end the "scandal" part of this. But I'm not positive I'm right.

 

[jon_mx]

I've sort of been dismissing this scandal but that article gave me pause. Perhaps this is more serious than I originally thought...

Oof.

Why "oof"? I normally almost always dismiss these sorts of scandals. But who knows? If Congress can find a link to the Obama administration, then there's something there. If they can't, then there isn't. But at this point, it's not unreasonable to be concerned.

I'd be more concerned with these pseudo political organizations - who so happened to crop up because of this past Election cycle - trying to game the IRS. The IRS shouldn't have to be put in a situation like this in the first place. If there was real campaign finance reform as well as tax reform, we may not have this conversation in the first place. But there is no way any politician would want to turn off any $$ spigot. The IRS should follow the money. That's their job.

You seem to be dismissing what appears to be at the heart of the issue. As far as I can see, there are two basic claims being made by conservatives here: 1. The IRS targeted conservative groups in an extraordinary way, using methods and focus which they have not applied in the past, and which were not applied against non-conservative groups, some of which were illegal. 2. The IRS did this at the direction of the Obama White House. If there is evidence that these two points are at all true, then your points regarding the overall state of campaign finance reform are irrelevant, IMO.

You're totally missing the point of what these again "pseudo political organizations" were trying to do in the first place. ETA: you posted "if these all are true". So something that isn't proven you find 'relevant'. That's pure squish.

You are seriously more concerned about these groups exercising free speech than you are abuses by the IRS. That is the most pathetic defense I could imagine.

 

[GroveDiesel]

How does it end the scandal part? So far we have had 3 top level IRS employees lose their jobs over this. Like top of the top. Isn't that enough to qualify as a scandal? Sheesh.

 

[drummer]

I've sort of been dismissing this scandal but that article gave me pause. Perhaps this is more serious than I originally thought...

Oof.

Why "oof"?

I normally almost always dismiss these sorts of scandals. But who knows? If Congress can find a link to the Obama administration, then there's something there. If they can't, then there isn't. But at this point, it's not unreasonable to be concerned.

I'd be more concerned with these pseudo political organizations - who so happened to crop up because of this past Election cycle - trying to game the IRS. The IRS shouldn't have to be put in a situation like this in the first place. If there was real campaign finance reform as well as tax reform, we may not have this conversation in the first place.

But there is no way any politician would want to turn off any $$ spigot. The IRS should follow the money. That's their job.

You seem to be dismissing what appears to be at the heart of the issue. As far as I can see, there are two basic claims being made by conservatives here:

1. The IRS targeted conservative groups in an extraordinary way, using methods and focus which they have not applied in the past, and which were not applied against non-conservative groups, some of which were illegal.

2. The IRS did this at the direction of the Obama White House.

If there is evidence that these two points are at all true, then your points regarding the overall state of campaign finance reform are irrelevant, IMO.

You're totally missing the point of what these again "pseudo political organizations" were trying to do in the first place.

ETA: you posted "if these all are true". So something that isn't proven you find 'relevant'. That's pure squish.

Are you related to Todd Andrews?

At this point I have no idea if it's relevant or not. As I wrote, I was dismissive but that piece from Commentary makes me hesitate. Could there actually be more to this? If I had to wager, I would say no; I don't believe any connection will ever be established between the IRS and the White House, and that should end the "scandal" part of this. But I'm not positive I'm right.

The term "squish" isn't an Andrews exclusive coined term, and I may have not even used it within proper context. But let me ask you this: if The Heritage Foundation - the Conservative political organization that recently posted and article that had immigrants (translation: people from south of the border) genetically and socially inferior to "native" Americans (and we're not talking about the real Native Americans) - trying to get a tax exemption while being a major contributor to the Republican party, shouldn't the IRS actually look at they being a "social welfare" program?

 

[drummer]

I've sort of been dismissing this scandal but that article gave me pause. Perhaps this is more serious than I originally thought...

Oof.

Why "oof"? I normally almost always dismiss these sorts of scandals. But who knows? If Congress can find a link to the Obama administration, then there's something there. If they can't, then there isn't. But at this point, it's not unreasonable to be concerned.

I'd be more concerned with these pseudo political organizations - who so happened to crop up because of this past Election cycle - trying to game the IRS. The IRS shouldn't have to be put in a situation like this in the first place. If there was real campaign finance reform as well as tax reform, we may not have this conversation in the first place. But there is no way any politician would want to turn off any $$ spigot. The IRS should follow the money. That's their job.

You seem to be dismissing what appears to be at the heart of the issue. As far as I can see, there are two basic claims being made by conservatives here: 1. The IRS targeted conservative groups in an extraordinary way, using methods and focus which they have not applied in the past, and which were not applied against non-conservative groups, some of which were illegal. 2. The IRS did this at the direction of the Obama White House. If there is evidence that these two points are at all true, then your points regarding the overall state of campaign finance reform are irrelevant, IMO.

You're totally missing the point of what these again "pseudo political organizations" were trying to do in the first place. ETA: you posted "if these all are true". So something that isn't proven you find 'relevant'. That's pure squish.

You are seriously more concerned about these groups exercising free speech than you are abuses by the IRS. That is the most pathetic defense I could imagine.

You're defending right wing pseudo organizations trying to game the system. I'm not defending anything. I'm just attacking your line of goofy.

 

[timschochet]

I've sort of been dismissing this scandal but that article gave me pause. Perhaps this is more serious than I originally thought...

Oof.

Why "oof"?

I normally almost always dismiss these sorts of scandals. But who knows? If Congress can find a link to the Obama administration, then there's something there. If they can't, then there isn't. But at this point, it's not unreasonable to be concerned.

I'd be more concerned with these pseudo political organizations - who so happened to crop up because of this past Election cycle - trying to game the IRS. The IRS shouldn't have to be put in a situation like this in the first place. If there was real campaign finance reform as well as tax reform, we may not have this conversation in the first place.

But there is no way any politician would want to turn off any $$ spigot. The IRS should follow the money. That's their job.

You seem to be dismissing what appears to be at the heart of the issue. As far as I can see, there are two basic claims being made by conservatives here:

1. The IRS targeted conservative groups in an extraordinary way, using methods and focus which they have not applied in the past, and which were not applied against non-conservative groups, some of which were illegal.

2. The IRS did this at the direction of the Obama White House.

If there is evidence that these two points are at all true, then your points regarding the overall state of campaign finance reform are irrelevant, IMO.

You're totally missing the point of what these again "pseudo political organizations" were trying to do in the first place.

ETA: you posted "if these all are true". So something that isn't proven you find 'relevant'. That's pure squish.

Are you related to Todd Andrews?

At this point I have no idea if it's relevant or not. As I wrote, I was dismissive but that piece from Commentary makes me hesitate. Could there actually be more to this? If I had to wager, I would say no; I don't believe any connection will ever be established between the IRS and the White House, and that should end the "scandal" part of this. But I'm not positive I'm right.

The term "squish" isn't an Andrews exclusive coined term, and I may have not even used it within proper context. But let me ask you this: if The Heritage Foundation - the Conservative political organization that recently posted and article that had immigrants (translation: people from south of the border) genetically and socially inferior to "native" Americans (and we're not talking about the real Native Americans) - trying to get a tax exemption while being a major contributor to the Republican party, shouldn't the IRS actually look at they being a "social welfare" program?

In a perfect world? Of course. But in reality it depends on whether or not they focused on other organizations in the past which do the same thing, and if they're completely impartial between conservative and progressive groups. If they're going to "pick on" primarily conservative groups and leave others alone at the same time, then I'd say there is a problem.

 

[timschochet]

How does it end the scandal part? So far we have had 3 top level IRS employees lose their jobs over this. Like top of the top. Isn't that enough to qualify as a scandal? Sheesh.

The Republicans are trying to direct this scandal at the Obama administration. In order to do that, you need for the Obama administration to be involved. Let's be honest- no matter how high up the IRS employees are, if it's limited to just the IRS the public isn't going to care. Partisan conservatives will care, but they're not too fond of Obama anyhow. For the public to care about this, there has to be a connection.