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

[Sand]

The IRS seems to be targeting more than just groups, now. Dr. Ben Carson, who delivered that "inflammatory" speech with the President in attendance, was then subjected to a full audit of all his incomes and holdings.

This is just stunning, really. I guess under this administration you maintain your 1st amendment rights unless your ideals aren't administration approved and you want to organize a group around it, or as an individual talk about the wrong things too close to those in power?

 

[Sand]

What next? Whitewater? Vince Foster? Diebold machines?

No, but if you go this direction I'd love to talk about Hollerith machines and IBM's substantial contribution to the Holocaust.

 

[flapgreen]

Lol

 

[Sand]

Obama's crack team is on it - including the head of the investigation, who has personally given $6k to O's election campaigns. Can't say I'm terribly surprised - the administration wants this to go away in the worst way.

 

[Rove!]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/05/former-irs-official-to-show-up/

Issa, Cummings clash

Lerner takes the 5th...

 

[LinusMarr]

Crooked as the day is loooooong......lol

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

New documents released.

A series of IRS documents, provided to ThinkProgress under the Freedom of Information Act, appears to contradict the claims by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and his House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that only Tea Party organizations applying for tax-exempt status “received systematic scrutiny because of their political beliefs.” The 22 “Be On the Look Out” keywords lists, distributed to staff reviewing applications between August 12, 2010 and April 19, 2013, included more explicit references to progressive groups, ACORN successors, and medical marijuana organizations than to Tea Party entities…

The IRS provided the heavily-redacted lists to ThinkProgress, after nearly a year-long search. From the earliest lists through 2012, the “historical” section of the lists encouraged reviewers to watch out for “progressive” groups with names like “blue,” as their requests for 501©(3) charitable status might be inappropriate. Their inclusion in this section suggests that the concern predates the initial 2010 list.

Explicit references to “Tea Party,” included in the “emerging issues” section of the lists, also began in August 2010 — but stopped appearing after the May 10, 2011 list. From that point on, the lists instructed agents to flag all political advocacy groups of any stripe. The documents instructed the agents to forward any “organization involved with political, lobbying, or advocacy” applying for 501©(3) or 501©(4) status be forwarded to “group 7822″ for additional review. Groups under both categories are limited in the amount of of lobbying and political activity each can undertake.

Other types of groups received explicit scrutiny for longer than “progressive” or “Tea Party” organizations. These included applicants involved with “medical marijuana” but not “exclusively education” (19 appearances in the “watch list” section of the lists), which were to be forwarded to a “group 7888″ and groups believed to be possible successor-groups to ACORN, the now-shuttered Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (12 appearances on the “watch list” section). Those applications were also to be elevated to managers for further review. All 22 documents also flagged applicants with Puerto Rico addresses and certain types of “Testamentary Trusts.”

Last year, the IRS acknowledged that it had improperly flagged groups applying for tax-exempt status for additional scrutiny if they contained common Tea Party keywords in their applications. Rather than addressing the very real problem of political committees masquerading as 501©(4) groups to evade public disclosure laws, this approach instead delayed the process for several groups purely on the basis of their names. President Obama and members of both parties in Congress all agree that the IRS acted improperly in singling-out certain groups for more scrutiny than others.

Here's a chart showing what kinds of groups were targeted.

 

[rockaction]

New documents released.

A series of IRS documents, provided to ThinkProgress under the Freedom of Information Act, appears to contradict the claims by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and his House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that only Tea Party organizations applying for tax-exempt status “received systematic scrutiny because of their political beliefs.” The 22 “Be On the Look Out” keywords lists, distributed to staff reviewing applications between August 12, 2010 and April 19, 2013, included more explicit references to progressive groups, ACORN successors, and medical marijuana organizations than to Tea Party entities…

The IRS provided the heavily-redacted lists to ThinkProgress, after nearly a year-long search. From the earliest lists through 2012, the “historical” section of the lists encouraged reviewers to watch out for “progressive” groups with names like “blue,” as their requests for 501©(3) charitable status might be inappropriate. Their inclusion in this section suggests that the concern predates the initial 2010 list.

Explicit references to “Tea Party,” included in the “emerging issues” section of the lists, also began in August 2010 — but stopped appearing after the May 10, 2011 list. From that point on, the lists instructed agents to flag all political advocacy groups of any stripe. The documents instructed the agents to forward any “organization involved with political, lobbying, or advocacy” applying for 501©(3) or 501©(4) status be forwarded to “group 7822″ for additional review. Groups under both categories are limited in the amount of of lobbying and political activity each can undertake.

Other types of groups received explicit scrutiny for longer than “progressive” or “Tea Party” organizations. These included applicants involved with “medical marijuana” but not “exclusively education” (19 appearances in the “watch list” section of the lists), which were to be forwarded to a “group 7888″ and groups believed to be possible successor-groups to ACORN, the now-shuttered Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (12 appearances on the “watch list” section). Those applications were also to be elevated to managers for further review. All 22 documents also flagged applicants with Puerto Rico addresses and certain types of “Testamentary Trusts.”

Last year, the IRS acknowledged that it had improperly flagged groups applying for tax-exempt status for additional scrutiny if they contained common Tea Party keywords in their applications. Rather than addressing the very real problem of political committees masquerading as 501©(4) groups to evade public disclosure laws, this approach instead delayed the process for several groups purely on the basis of their names. President Obama and members of both parties in Congress all agree that the IRS acted improperly in singling-out certain groups for more scrutiny than others.

Here's a chart showing what kinds of groups were targeted.

Thank God this comes from Think Progress.

Imagine if the Free Beacon had provided us with this information.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

New documents released.

A series of IRS documents, provided to ThinkProgress under the Freedom of Information Act, appears to contradict the claims by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and his House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that only Tea Party organizations applying for tax-exempt status “received systematic scrutiny because of their political beliefs.” The 22 “Be On the Look Out” keywords lists, distributed to staff reviewing applications between August 12, 2010 and April 19, 2013, included more explicit references to progressive groups, ACORN successors, and medical marijuana organizations than to Tea Party entities…

The IRS provided the heavily-redacted lists to ThinkProgress, after nearly a year-long search. From the earliest lists through 2012, the “historical” section of the lists encouraged reviewers to watch out for “progressive” groups with names like “blue,” as their requests for 501©(3) charitable status might be inappropriate. Their inclusion in this section suggests that the concern predates the initial 2010 list.

Explicit references to “Tea Party,” included in the “emerging issues” section of the lists, also began in August 2010 — but stopped appearing after the May 10, 2011 list. From that point on, the lists instructed agents to flag all political advocacy groups of any stripe. The documents instructed the agents to forward any “organization involved with political, lobbying, or advocacy” applying for 501©(3) or 501©(4) status be forwarded to “group 7822″ for additional review. Groups under both categories are limited in the amount of of lobbying and political activity each can undertake.

Other types of groups received explicit scrutiny for longer than “progressive” or “Tea Party” organizations. These included applicants involved with “medical marijuana” but not “exclusively education” (19 appearances in the “watch list” section of the lists), which were to be forwarded to a “group 7888″ and groups believed to be possible successor-groups to ACORN, the now-shuttered Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (12 appearances on the “watch list” section). Those applications were also to be elevated to managers for further review. All 22 documents also flagged applicants with Puerto Rico addresses and certain types of “Testamentary Trusts.”

Last year, the IRS acknowledged that it had improperly flagged groups applying for tax-exempt status for additional scrutiny if they contained common Tea Party keywords in their applications. Rather than addressing the very real problem of political committees masquerading as 501©(4) groups to evade public disclosure laws, this approach instead delayed the process for several groups purely on the basis of their names. President Obama and members of both parties in Congress all agree that the IRS acted improperly in singling-out certain groups for more scrutiny than others.

Here's a chart showing what kinds of groups were targeted.

Thank God this comes from Think Progress.

Imagine if the Free Beacon had provided us with this information.

Actually, it came from the IRS.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Thank God this comes from Think Progress.

That's who did the FOIA request.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I've always hated how (c) turns into ©.

 

[timschochet]

There's still Benghazi, right? Something's gotta stick!

 

[drummer]

@ pitts in this thread.

 

[fatness]

Here's a chart showing what kinds of groups were targeted.

Is there another chart of who whined the most about it?

 

[RCon]

There's still Benghazi, right? Something's gotta stick!

You really don't get it, do you? This isn't a left vs. right issue. This is a people vs. government issue.

Something went wrong in Benghazi. People died when they didn't have to. Someone screwed up. Why can't we the people find out who and what? I don't care if Democrats screwed up or Republicans.

Ditto IRS. Something happened and someone made what appears to be a poor, perhaps illegal, decision. I don't care who, but I want to know, so we can ensure that the person(s) has been removed from the power to make those decisions.

Ditto Fast and Furious.

Yet instead of actual investigation and fact finding, we get GOP House members fighting with Obama and Pelosi for who can release the best soundbites. There's blame to go around on both parties, but the Dept. of Justice needs to suck it up and do what's right, with transparency, regardless of who it implicates.

 

[RCon]

Something went wrong in Benghazi. People died when they didn't have to. Someone screwed up. Why can't we the people find out who and what? I don't care if Democrats screwed up or Republicans.

Ditto IRS. Something happened and someone made what appears to be a poor, perhaps illegal, decision. I don't care who, but I want to know, so we can ensure that the person(s) has been removed from the power to make those decisions.

We do know what happened and in both cases the government has already acknowledged there were poor decisions. Some people are refusing to accept that though since it doesn't fit the story they want to tell.

I'll admit I don't go chasing this information all that thoroughly, partially because it's near impossible to find actual information among the shrieking on both sides (mostly on the GOP side currently). However, I don't feel like I've really seen a full accounting of what happened in Fast & Furious or Benghazi. If you have real links, I'd appreciate it.

Edit: I should note that simply acknowledging that poor decisions were made isn't enough. That would seem self-evident. A complete account needs to show who, how, why, and what's been to done to prevent the same in the future.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Something went wrong in Benghazi. People died when they didn't have to. Someone screwed up. Why can't we the people find out who and what? I don't care if Democrats screwed up or Republicans.

Ditto IRS. Something happened and someone made what appears to be a poor, perhaps illegal, decision. I don't care who, but I want to know, so we can ensure that the person(s) has been removed from the power to make those decisions.

We do know what happened and in both cases the government has already acknowledged there were poor decisions. Some people are refusing to accept that though since it doesn't fit the story they want to tell.

I'll admit I don't go chasing this information all that thoroughly, partially because it's near impossible to find actual information among the shrieking on both sides (mostly on the GOP side currently). However, I don't feel like I've really seen a full accounting of what happened in Fast & Furious or Benghazi. If you have real links, I'd appreciate it.

Edit: I should note that simply acknowledging that poor decisions were made isn't enough. That would seem self-evident. A complete account needs to show who, how, why, and what's been to done to prevent the same in the future.

Senate intelligence report on Benghazi. http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

No wonder it was so important for Darrell Issa (R-Cherrypicker) to keep the full transcripts and other info away from the public:

The Internal Revenue Service’s screening of groups seeking tax-exempt status was broader and lasted longer than has been previously disclosed, the new head of the agency said Monday.An internal IRS document obtained by The Associated Press said that besides ‘‘tea party,’’ lists used by screeners to pick groups for close examination also included the terms ‘‘Israel,’’ ‘'Progressive’’ and ‘‘Occupy.’’ The document said an investigation into why specific terms were included was still underway.

In my opinion the government should not be investigating or examining the political speech of any groups, anywhere, of any leaning.

But this is what I do not understand:

I totally believe what you say above and what is reported may be the case, but don't all groups have an interest in knowing who made and does make ordinarily this decision. how and why and when?

How this occurred should not be taking this long. The executive branch has zero right or reason to keep this information from citizens and from Congress, and Lois Lerner should have zero reason to be pleading the 5th if she did nothing wrong.

Don't you agree?

 

[timschochet]

Sorry Rich, this story, along with Fast and Furious and Benghazi, were absolutely partisan. In all three cases the government screwed up at a lower level than President Obama. In all three cases conservatives regarded the actions as deliberate rather than screwups, and attempted to tie them to Obama by suggesting conspiracy and cover up. In all three cases these same conservatives were motivated not by a search for truth (they rejected the truth) but by a visceral hatred of Obama.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Sorry Rich, this story, along with Fast and Furious and Benghazi, were absolutely partisan. In all three cases the government screwed up at a lower level than President Obama. In all three cases conservatives regarded the actions as deliberate rather than screwups, and attempted to tie them to Obama by suggesting conspiracy and cover up. In all three cases these same conservatives were motivated not by a search for truth (they rejected the truth) but by a visceral hatred of Obama.

The administration is helping in a lot of this, in F&F they withheld documents and Holder landed in contempt (which some Democrats voted for), in Benghazi the administration kept pushing the video/ spontaneous line after the facts were known, and here with the IRS they won't reveal who made the decision or why and Lerner has pleaded the 5th.

 

[fatness]

In my opinion the government should not be investigating or examining the political speech of any groups, anywhere, of any leaning.

Are you saying that any group that applies for this particular charitable status should be approved on their word alone?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

In my opinion the government should not be investigating or examining the political speech of any groups, anywhere, of any leaning.

Are you saying that any group that applies for this particular charitable status should be approved on their word alone?

No, in my opinion, we should not be denying non-profit status because people speak politically, left or right.

 

[fatness]

In my opinion the government should not be investigating or examining the political speech of any groups, anywhere, of any leaning.

Are you saying that any group that applies for this particular charitable status should be approved on their word alone?

No, in my opinion, we should not be denying non-profit status because people speak politically, left or right.

It's a particular tax-exempt status which groups have to apply for. Part of the application is meeting certain conditions, one or more of which is being restricted from political and legislative lobbying. How could this be examined without examining how the group "speaks"?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

In my opinion the government should not be investigating or examining the political speech of any groups, anywhere, of any leaning.

Are you saying that any group that applies for this particular charitable status should be approved on their word alone?

No, in my opinion, we should not be denying non-profit status because people speak politically, left or right.

It's a particular tax-exempt status which groups have to apply for. Part of the application is meeting certain conditions, one or more of which is being restricted from political and legislative lobbying. How could this be examined without examining how the group "speaks"?

I realize that, and I'm saying I disagree with the law.

I have no idea how or why people think social activism and free speech can be divided like that. If I think there is too much homelessness and I run a homeless shelter, why should I be penalized because I say that President Obama or a Hillary Clinton would be better to reduce homelessness than a Mitt Romney or a Ted Cruz?

 

[tommyGunZ]

In my opinion the government should not be investigating or examining the political speech of any groups, anywhere, of any leaning.

Are you saying that any group that applies for this particular charitable status should be approved on their word alone?

No, in my opinion, we should not be denying non-profit status because people speak politically, left or right.

Wow. Just wow.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

In my opinion the government should not be investigating or examining the political speech of any groups, anywhere, of any leaning.

Are you saying that any group that applies for this particular charitable status should be approved on their word alone?

No, in my opinion, we should not be denying non-profit status because people speak politically, left or right.

Wow. Just wow.

It's true, to me left right everywhere or anywhere free speech is just that, free.

Why should a Planned Parenthood or similar group not be able to say publicly that one presidential candidate would be better than another in terms of protecting reproductive rights?

 

[tommyGunZ]

In my opinion the government should not be investigating or examining the political speech of any groups, anywhere, of any leaning.

Are you saying that any group that applies for this particular charitable status should be approved on their word alone?

No, in my opinion, we should not be denying non-profit status because people speak politically, left or right.

It's a particular tax-exempt status which groups have to apply for. Part of the application is meeting certain conditions, one or more of which is being restricted from political and legislative lobbying. How could this be examined without examining how the group "speaks"?

I realize that, and I'm saying I disagree with the law.

I have no idea how or why people think social activism and free speech can be divided like that. If I think there is too much homelessness and I run a homeless shelter, why should I be penalized because I say that President Obama or a Hillary Clinton would be better to reduce homelessness than a Mitt Romney or a Ted Cruz?

You can say whatever you want. If you are going to spend more than 50% of your non-profit's revenues on political propaganda, that organization should not receive the same tax exempt status that was created for organizations like the Red Cross.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

In my opinion the government should not be investigating or examining the political speech of any groups, anywhere, of any leaning.

Are you saying that any group that applies for this particular charitable status should be approved on their word alone?

No, in my opinion, we should not be denying non-profit status because people speak politically, left or right.

How is political speech charitable?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

In my opinion the government should not be investigating or examining the political speech of any groups, anywhere, of any leaning.

Are you saying that any group that applies for this particular charitable status should be approved on their word alone?

No, in my opinion, we should not be denying non-profit status because people speak politically, left or right.

How is political speech charitable?

Because speech is how you inspire charity through government.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

In my opinion the government should not be investigating or examining the political speech of any groups, anywhere, of any leaning.

Are you saying that any group that applies for this particular charitable status should be approved on their word alone?

No, in my opinion, we should not be denying non-profit status because people speak politically, left or right.

It's a particular tax-exempt status which groups have to apply for. Part of the application is meeting certain conditions, one or more of which is being restricted from political and legislative lobbying. How could this be examined without examining how the group "speaks"?

I realize that, and I'm saying I disagree with the law.

I have no idea how or why people think social activism and free speech can be divided like that. If I think there is too much homelessness and I run a homeless shelter, why should I be penalized because I say that President Obama or a Hillary Clinton would be better to reduce homelessness than a Mitt Romney or a Ted Cruz?

You can say whatever you want. If you are going to spend more than 50% of your non-profit's revenues on political propaganda, that organization should not receive the same tax exempt status that was created for organizations like the Red Cross.

Is 50% the actual standard? If so that helps, but to me it's impossible to act socially and not have an opinion that one party or politician is better or worse for the social outcome you want to effect.

In fact those are the people that have the greatest stake and interest in political outcomes.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It's true, to me left right everywhere or anywhere free speech is just that, free.

Why should a Planned Parenthood or similar group not be able to say publicly that one presidential candidate would be better than another in terms of protecting reproductive rights?

Why should I get a tax deduction for supporting Planned Parenthood or similar group advocating for a political candidate or even political cause? Why is tax deduction for that free speech past on to other tax payers one way or another that don't support that organization or its causes or its candidates?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's true, to me left right everywhere or anywhere free speech is just that, free.

Why should a Planned Parenthood or similar group not be able to say publicly that one presidential candidate would be better than another in terms of protecting reproductive rights?

Why should I get a tax deduction for supporting Planned Parenthood or similar group advocating for a political candidate or even political cause? Why is tax deduction for that free speech past on to other tax payers one way or another that don't support that organization or its causes or its candidates?

Because their purpose is social, either we are supporting that generally or we're not. To me charity and speech advocating charity or what is best for society are inseparable.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

In my opinion the government should not be investigating or examining the political speech of any groups, anywhere, of any leaning.

Are you saying that any group that applies for this particular charitable status should be approved on their word alone?

No, in my opinion, we should not be denying non-profit status because people speak politically, left or right.

How is political speech charitable?

Because speech is how you inspire charity through government.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It's true, to me left right everywhere or anywhere free speech is just that, free.

Why should a Planned Parenthood or similar group not be able to say publicly that one presidential candidate would be better than another in terms of protecting reproductive rights?

Why should I get a tax deduction for supporting Planned Parenthood or similar group advocating for a political candidate or even political cause? Why is tax deduction for that free speech past on to other tax payers one way or another that don't support that organization or its causes or its candidates?

Because their purpose is social, either we are supporting that generally or we're not. To me charity and speech advocating charity or what is best for society are inseparable.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Funny that gets discussed, but this was my bigger point:

But this is what I do not understand:

I totally believe what you say above and what is reported may be the case, but don't all groups have an interest in knowing who made and does make ordinarily this decision. how and why and when?

How this occurred should not be taking this long. The executive branch has zero right or reason to keep this information from citizens and from Congress, and Lois Lerner should have zero reason to be pleading the 5th if she did nothing wrong.

Don't you agree?

I don't exactly see the reason for any mystery here. Everybody has a stake in knowing who makes this decision generally.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Because their purpose is social, either we are supporting that generally or we're not. To me charity and speech advocating charity or what is best for society are inseparable.

So exactly what is the "social" purpose of organizations that simply advocate that taxes are too high?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

In my opinion the government should not be investigating or examining the political speech of any groups, anywhere, of any leaning.

Are you saying that any group that applies for this particular charitable status should be approved on their word alone?

No, in my opinion, we should not be denying non-profit status because people speak politically, left or right.

How is political speech charitable?

Because speech is how you inspire charity through government.

It's definitely one way.

If I advocate helping the poor, I likely believe that larger government helps or hurts them, that cannot be separated from supporting or opposing candidates who advocate or oppose policies for larger or smaller government.

 

[tommyGunZ]

What is your question? What decision are you confused by?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Because their purpose is social, either we are supporting that generally or we're not. To me charity and speech advocating charity or what is best for society are inseparable.

So exactly what is the "social" purpose of organizations that simply advocate that taxes are too high?

It's all about the social good, the common weal. Anyone who talks about government believes that most policies one or another are either "good" or "bad." It's a very real argument to say that lower taxes help the economy, create more spending power at home to be spent on essentials like food and health care; and it's also a common real argument to say that higher taxes pay for social services like housing, health care, welfare, and everything in the social safety net we enjoy today. Taxes are very much a part of very social issue we discuss as a nation and locally.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Funny that gets discussed, but this was my bigger point:

But this is what I do not understand:

I totally believe what you say above and what is reported may be the case, but don't all groups have an interest in knowing who made and does make ordinarily this decision. how and why and when?

How this occurred should not be taking this long. The executive branch has zero right or reason to keep this information from citizens and from Congress, and Lois Lerner should have zero reason to be pleading the 5th if she did nothing wrong.

Don't you agree?

I don't exactly see the reason for any mystery here. Everybody has a stake in knowing who makes this decision generally.

What mystery still exist here?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

What is your question? What decision are you confused by?

Ha, am I crazy to think that - if we all agree that nothing wrong or bad happened - that anyone anywhere should be able to ask and find out who decides the policies on which groups will be watched for violation of the 501 law and how?

That really should not be a state secret.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Funny that gets discussed, but this was my bigger point:

But this is what I do not understand:

I totally believe what you say above and what is reported may be the case, but don't all groups have an interest in knowing who made and does make ordinarily this decision. how and why and when?

How this occurred should not be taking this long. The executive branch has zero right or reason to keep this information from citizens and from Congress, and Lois Lerner should have zero reason to be pleading the 5th if she did nothing wrong.

Don't you agree?

I don't exactly see the reason for any mystery here. Everybody has a stake in knowing who makes this decision generally.

What mystery still exist here?

I will fully admit if I haven't been following along. What's the name of the person who created the search terms and the actual enforcement policy at dispute here?

 

[mr roboto]

Wow. This is a weird debate.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ok I will close summarize and go enjoy my Sunday:

An internal IRS document obtained by The Associated Press said that besides "tea party," lists used by screeners to pick groups for close examination also included the terms "Israel," ''Progressive" and "Occupy." The document said an investigation into why specific terms were included was still underway.

In a conference call with reporters, Danny Werfel said that after becoming acting IRS chief last month, he discovered wide-ranging and improper terms on the lists and said screeners were still using them. He did not specify what terms were on the lists, but said he suspended the use of all such lists immediately.

The report describes several new procedures the agency is installing to prevent unfair treatment of taxpayers in the future. They include a fast-track process for groups seeking tax-exempt status that have yet to get a response from the IRS within 120 days of applying.

In addition, the top five people in the agency responsible for the tax-exempt status of organizations have been removed, including the former acting commissioner, Steven Miller, whom President Barack Obama replaced with Werfel.

"The IRS is committed to correcting its mistakes, holding individuals accountable as appropriate" and establishing new controls to reduce potential future problems, Werfel told reporters.

http://www.businessinsider.com/irs-tea-party-targeting-report-danny-werfel-occupy-israel-progressive-2013-6#ixzz306eNhcgK


So progressives and liberals should be happy that Republicans uncovered this stupid rule making team.

And Republicans should be happy that the people responsible have been sh1+canned. The only question left is why Lerner felt she had anything to plead the 5th for all this since according to everyone involved - except Lerner - nobody did anything wrong at least besides the creation and the enforcement of the rules themselves which got everyone fired by the president. Maybe it's also an open question whether, even though the rules encompassed lefty groups, they were enforced differently as to the right than the left.

(Have a good week, I can't wait for the draft to get here soon enough.)

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I will fully admit if I haven't been following along.

To be fair neither is Issa.

What's the name of the person who created the search terms...

Shafer, who identified himself as "a conservative Republican" and said he'd worked for the IRS since 1992, said that he and a fellow screener initially flagged a tea party group and continued to do so with subsequent applications in order to maintain consistency in the process.

Which was completely consistent with this post, (later updated here) although now it appears that my item 7 (bias against conservative groups) might be wrong.

...and the actual enforcement policy at dispute here?

The policy shut down the above as soon as it was discovered. The problem (among others) was the lack oversight that allowed the list to be created in the first place and not discovered for 18 months.

And the real shame is that there should be no expectation that any of this is being properly fixed because Issa and company are so confident that if they keep looking they will find the blue stained dress and don't really give a rat's about the real issues uncovered..

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hey BFS I just wanted to give you credit for answering the question, I appreciate it.

I just had another question IYDM:

The Republican and Democratic Parties are not taxed, right? I think the DNC actually has a corporation the DNC Services Corp behind it, and I'm guessing the Pubs do too.

If these parties aren't taxed for political activity, why should an Occupy group or a Pro-Israel advocacy group, or a tea party group or whoever, be?

What do you think about that?

 

[Sand]

There's still Benghazi, right? Something's gotta stick!

Obama has already stood at the pulpit, admitted culpability for the IRS here, and promised that it would be looked into.

Once POTUS publicly admits govt. malfeasance it is fait accompli.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Hey BFS I just wanted to give you credit for answering the question, I appreciate it.

I just had another question IYDM:

The Republican and Democratic Parties are not taxed, right? I think the DNC actually has a corporation the DNC Services Corp behind it, and I'm guessing the Pubs do too.

If these parties aren't taxed for political activity, why should an Occupy group or a Pro-Israel advocacy group, or a tea party group or whoever, be?

What do you think about that?

We aren't talking about 527 status, but 501c3 status, That is are contributions tax deductible. Political contributions are not so these groups call them charitable organizations instead (see chart on page 8 of this PDF which is page 2 of the document).

 

[Rove!]

Something went wrong in Benghazi. People died when they didn't have to. Someone screwed up. Why can't we the people find out who and what? I don't care if Democrats screwed up or Republicans.

Ditto IRS. Something happened and someone made what appears to be a poor, perhaps illegal, decision. I don't care who, but I want to know, so we can ensure that the person(s) has been removed from the power to make those decisions.

We do know what happened and in both cases the government has already acknowledged there were poor decisions. Some people are refusing to accept that though since it doesn't fit the story they want to tell.

all of these "poor decisions" and no one has been held accountable and no specific answers to legitimate questions which have been raised. This stonewalling horse#### is indefensible

 

[Sand]

Hey BFS I just wanted to give you credit for answering the question, I appreciate it.

I just had another question IYDM:

The Republican and Democratic Parties are not taxed, right? I think the DNC actually has a corporation the DNC Services Corp behind it, and I'm guessing the Pubs do too.

If these parties aren't taxed for political activity, why should an Occupy group or a Pro-Israel advocacy group, or a tea party group or whoever, be?

What do you think about that?

We aren't talking about 527 status, but 501c3 status, That is are contributions tax deductible. Political contributions are not so these groups call them charitable organizations instead (see chart on page 8 of this PDF which is page 2 of the document).

Interesting as I thought most of these were 501c4s. I work for a c3 (we are not a political org).