IRS Apologizes For Targeting Conservative Political Groups In 2012 Ele (2 Viewers)

[The Commish]

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

Pretty much sums up one of the big reasons our politicians are who they are...unreal.

 

[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).

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

You know I screwed up my first post in this thread also. I think you may be correct that the Tea Party groups were a 4 and not a 3. That is I think I'm wrong about the contribution piece being what mattered here. Sorry Saint.

 

[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).

You know I screwed up my first post in this thread also. I think you may be correct that the Tea Party groups were a 4 and not a 3. That is I think I'm wrong about the contribution piece being what mattered here. Sorry Saint.

I wasn't accusing as I really don't know. I just happen to work for a c3 and thought we were a different beast than these constructs.

 

[RCon]

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.

So your opinion is that no one did anything wrong or screwed up in any of these instances?I fully agree that the GOP politicians and right-wing "news" are off the deep end, and that's a large part of why we can't get meaningful transparency. But the left hasn't exactly taken the high road, either. That's why I said these issues aren't left versus right, but rather the people versus the government (all of it).

 

[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).

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

You know I screwed up my first post in this thread also. I think you may be correct that the Tea Party groups were a 4 and not a 3. That is I think I'm wrong about the contribution piece being what mattered here. Sorry Saint.

I wasn't accusing as I really don't know. I just happen to work for a c3 and thought we were a different beast than these constructs.

I'm fine. I stopped caring about this almost a year ago when the "political scandal" was pretty much settled and it was left to the admin to clean it up. Shouldn't have been so quick to respond to a new question.

 

[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.

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?

You're missing the point, and I don't know why. Nobody's freedom of speech is being restricted by that law. It's an application for tax-exempt status, which is granted under certain conditions.

If you disagree with those conditions, apparently you're in favor of tax exempt status for everyone applying. Which seems like a huge giveaway program to me.

 

[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?

You're missing the point, and I don't know why. Nobody's freedom of speech is being restricted by that law. It's an application for tax-exempt status, which is granted under certain conditions.

If you disagree with those conditions, apparently you're in favor of tax exempt status for everyone applying. Which seems like a huge giveaway program to me.

What I'm saying is that the government should not tax people - or groups they belong to - simply because they start speaking politically. If that's the case then yes freedom of speech is being impinged because people are being penalized for speaking politically (not to mention you have the IRS ie the government actually investigating people's political content).

Though maybe I'm under the wrong assumption here.

I thought the issue was that if a group applied for 501c3 and was denied that group could be taxed if they are deemed to be political and not "social" in nature - is that not correct?

Or would the only difference be that they would be deemed to be a 501c4 and they would still be untaxed, just under a different designation as being "political"?

 

[jon_mx]

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.

So your opinion is that no one did anything wrong or screwed up in any of these instances?I fully agree that the GOP politicians and right-wing "news" are off the deep end, and that's a large part of why we can't get meaningful transparency. But the left hasn't exactly taken the high road, either. That's why I said these issues aren't left versus right, but rather the people versus the government (all of it).

Tim's problem is he is ok with MSNBC stories which are left-wing driven partisan dribble, but gets highly offended by similar stories from the right.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

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?

You're missing the point, and I don't know why. Nobody's freedom of speech is being restricted by that law. It's an application for tax-exempt status, which is granted under certain conditions.

If you disagree with those conditions, apparently you're in favor of tax exempt status for everyone applying. Which seems like a huge giveaway program to me.

What I'm saying is that the government should not tax people - or groups they belong to - simply because they start speaking politically. If that's the case then yes freedom of speech is being impinged.

Though maybe I'm under the wrong assumption here.

I thought the issue was that if a group applied for 501c3 and was denied that group could be taxed if they are deemed to be political and not "social" in nature - is that not correct?

Or would the only difference be that they would be deemed to be a 501c4 and they would still be untaxed, just under a different designation as being "political"?

No, I believe they'd be considered 527 political groups and would have to pay taxes. They would also have to disclose their donors, which is what a lot of this is really about.

 

[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?

You're missing the point, and I don't know why. Nobody's freedom of speech is being restricted by that law. It's an application for tax-exempt status, which is granted under certain conditions.

If you disagree with those conditions, apparently you're in favor of tax exempt status for everyone applying. Which seems like a huge giveaway program to me.

What I'm saying is that the government should not tax people - or groups they belong to - simply because they start speaking politically. If that's the case then yes freedom of speech is being impinged.

Though maybe I'm under the wrong assumption here.

I thought the issue was that if a group applied for 501c3 and was denied that group could be taxed if they are deemed to be political and not "social" in nature - is that not correct?

Or would the only difference be that they would be deemed to be a 501c4 and they would still be untaxed, just under a different designation as being "political"?

No, I believe they'd be considered 527 political groups and would have to pay taxes. They would also have to disclose their donors, which is what a lot of this is really about.

And so once again what are political parties like the Republican Party and the Democratic Party and their supporting arms like the DNC Services Corporation, 527's or 501c4's?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

What I'm saying is that the government should not tax people - or groups they belong to - simply because they start speaking politically. If that's the case then yes freedom of speech is being impinged.

Though maybe I'm under the wrong assumption here.

I thought the issue was that if a group applied for 501c3 and was denied that group could be taxed if they are deemed to be political and not "social" in nature - is that not correct?

Or would the only difference be that they would be deemed to be a 501c4 and they would still be untaxed, just under a different designation as being "political"?

No, I believe they'd be considered 527 political groups and would have to pay taxes. They would also have to disclose their donors, which is what a lot of this is really about.

And so once again what are political parties like the Republican Party and the Democratic Party and their supporting arms like the DNC Services Corporation, 527's or 501c4's?

I think political parties are 527 groups, but some of their activities are tax-exempt. Those organizations already have to disclose their contributors to the Federal Election Commission, though.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

What I'm saying is that the government should not tax people - or groups they belong to - simply because they start speaking politically. If that's the case then yes freedom of speech is being impinged.

Though maybe I'm under the wrong assumption here.

I thought the issue was that if a group applied for 501c3 and was denied that group could be taxed if they are deemed to be political and not "social" in nature - is that not correct?

Or would the only difference be that they would be deemed to be a 501c4 and they would still be untaxed, just under a different designation as being "political"?

No, I believe they'd be considered 527 political groups and would have to pay taxes. They would also have to disclose their donors, which is what a lot of this is really about.

And so once again what are political parties like the Republican Party and the Democratic Party and their supporting arms like the DNC Services Corporation, 527's or 501c4's?

I think political parties are 527 groups, but some of their activities are tax-exempt. Those organizations already have to disclose their contributors to the Federal Election Commission, though.

Ok, thanks, I appreciate that.

In my view people and groups/associations and parties should not be taxed for being organized for political activity, it's not commercial and it's a fundamental right and no one should be taxed for engaging in a fundamental right. It would also remove the need for any administration to investigate what people are saying politically.

I'd also be rather curious as to why political parties might get some tax exempt activity, and if they do then I think all political groups should get that same treatment.

The point about the donors is a great one and yes I think all political donors should be identified.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

What I'm saying is that the government should not tax people - or groups they belong to - simply because they start speaking politically. If that's the case then yes freedom of speech is being impinged.

Though maybe I'm under the wrong assumption here.

I thought the issue was that if a group applied for 501c3 and was denied that group could be taxed if they are deemed to be political and not "social" in nature - is that not correct?

Or would the only difference be that they would be deemed to be a 501c4 and they would still be untaxed, just under a different designation as being "political"?

No, I believe they'd be considered 527 political groups and would have to pay taxes. They would also have to disclose their donors, which is what a lot of this is really about.

And so once again what are political parties like the Republican Party and the Democratic Party and their supporting arms like the DNC Services Corporation, 527's or 501c4's?

I think political parties are 527 groups, but some of their activities are tax-exempt. Those organizations already have to disclose their contributors to the Federal Election Commission, though.

Ok, thanks, I appreciate that.

In my view people and groups/associations and parties should not be taxed for being organized for political activity, it's not commercial and it's a fundamental right and no one should be taxed for engaging in a fundamental right. It would also remove the need for any administration to investigate what people are saying politically.

I'd also be rather curious as to why political parties might get some tax exempt activity, and if they do then I think all political groups should get that same treatment.

The point about the donors is a great one and yes I think all political donors should be identified.

It looks like 527 groups aren't taxed on contributions they receive, they're only taxed when they get income from investments and stuff like that. So really, this whole issue is about disclosure, not about tax exemptions.

I still can't really figure out what the Democratic and Republican parties are organized under.

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Political-Organizations/Taxable-Income-Political-Organizations

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I think political parties are 527 groups, but some of their activities are tax-exempt. Those organizations already have to disclose their contributors to the Federal Election Commission, though.

While I already spoke too soon once, I believe that this was the issue here. These groups want to be "social mission" groups so their contributors can remain anonymous.

Hopefully attempt #2 is correct. Ultimately these groups want to be called something other than political because they don't want the same rules that political groups operate.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I still can't really figure out what the Democratic and Republican parties are organized under.

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Political-Organizations/Taxable-Income-Political-Organizations

Why at least some left wing crazies support tax simplification and the elimination of all tax exemptions and deductions and credits in the process. (Though this should not suggest that we would support any tax simplification plan or that other considerations would not need to be involved.)

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I think political parties are 527 groups, but some of their activities are tax-exempt. Those organizations already have to disclose their contributors to the Federal Election Commission, though.

While I already spoke too soon once, I believe that this was the issue here. These groups want to be "social mission" groups so their contributors can remain anonymous.

Hopefully attempt #2 is correct. Ultimately these groups want to be called something other than political because they don't want the same rules that political groups operate.

It's very confusing, the IRS classification is somewhat different from the FEC classification. The IRS can classify you as a political organization even if the FEC doesn't consider you a political committee.

But yes, the primary motivation for all these groups in their requests seems to be that they do not want to have to disclose information.

 

[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.

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?

You're missing the point, and I don't know why. Nobody's freedom of speech is being restricted by that law. It's an application for tax-exempt status, which is granted under certain conditions.

If you disagree with those conditions, apparently you're in favor of tax exempt status for everyone applying. Which seems like a huge giveaway program to me.

What I'm saying is that the government should not tax people - or groups they belong to - simply because they start speaking politically. If that's the case then yes freedom of speech is being impinged because people are being penalized for speaking politically (not to mention you have the IRS ie the government actually investigating people's political content).

Though maybe I'm under the wrong assumption here.

I thought the issue was that if a group applied for 501c3 and was denied that group could be taxed if they are deemed to be political and not "social" in nature - is that not correct?

No, the original issue was that conservative groups were complaining that they were targeted unfairly. You can start on the first page of this topic and see that: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=681547&page=1

Now that it's been shown that conservative groups were targeted less than other groups with different political slants, the outrage is gone, and it's down to scuffling for little ways to save face like asking for full accounting of other things, understanding what qualifies a group for tax-exempt status, etc.

I still don't know why you think someone should get tax-exempt status if their activites are political, though.

 

[dhockster]

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.

In the IRS case, and possibly the others, I feel the Republicans are getting played badly by the administration.

The IRS starts targeting new non-profits, based on a criteria that does not appear to be political (based on what just got released). The republicans cry foul because this is affecting new tea party organizations, and demands an investigation. I am sure the administration found out very quickly from IRS representatives what the targeting was based on. Rather than refute the republicans right away and have this information released, they could have easily said no, let's let the republicans go on for awhile about how corrupt we are, and then when we release the information far off in the future, we not only show that they were wrong, but that they are partisan and waste government money and time on these silly investigations.

Republicans look bad, Democrats look persecuted, and public sentiment swings toward the democrats.

I really question why it has taken so long to release information that clears the IRS of acting in a partisan manner.

 

[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?

You're missing the point, and I don't know why. Nobody's freedom of speech is being restricted by that law. It's an application for tax-exempt status, which is granted under certain conditions.

If you disagree with those conditions, apparently you're in favor of tax exempt status for everyone applying. Which seems like a huge giveaway program to me.

What I'm saying is that the government should not tax people - or groups they belong to - simply because they start speaking politically. If that's the case then yes freedom of speech is being impinged because people are being penalized for speaking politically (not to mention you have the IRS ie the government actually investigating people's political content).

Though maybe I'm under the wrong assumption here.

I thought the issue was that if a group applied for 501c3 and was denied that group could be taxed if they are deemed to be political and not "social" in nature - is that not correct?

No, the original issue was that conservative groups were complaining that they were targeted unfairly. You can start on the first page of this topic and see that: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=681547&page=1

Now that it's been shown that conservative groups were targeted less than other groups with different political slants, the outrage is gone, and it's down to scuffling for little ways to save face like asking for full accounting of other things, understanding what qualifies a group for tax-exempt status, etc.

I still don't know why you think someone should get tax-exempt status if their activites are political, though.

I freely admit I've stepped away from the 24 hours news cycle, believe it or not I do get a fair bit of info from this board. (I acknowledge that may not be a great way to stay informed, but it is more fun and somewhat less obsessive). A lot of what I say is in the way of learning, or I hope it is. If I belabor things just let me know.

I do think campaign financing and political speech are really important issues.

Anyway my sense from reading all this is that liberals and progressives (or even socialists) should be just as happy as conservatives to learn about this process.

To me, no, the IRS should not be watching the political content of say an Occupy group because the government has zero business monitoring political speech.

In terms of the actual dispute, if a tea party group was actually hung up in processing so that they could not get on with being politically active, that would be a problem. I get the sense it was a problem because the Obama administration did indeed act to change the rules. That's good for everyone.

It also seems to me to be a pretty simple process for the IRS to look at a group and say 'ok they're political' and simply declare them a sec. 527 group, complete the application process and - boom - done. But that is not the controversy, it was that applications were held up.

As for the rules being equal as to the terms used, again it's the application of these rules - were left type groups also held up and investigated?

As for the speech issue, as stated apparently the political parties are not taxed on the very same basis I am speaking about. Political activity and political speech should not be taxed. The government should not be looking at the content of anyone's political speech, making judgement calls and then slapping a tax on people for engaging in a fundamental right. - Now, to me, FatGuy's point covers this amply. It sounds like they are not taxed if they get slotted as 527, which I agree with; I also agree that political donors should be disclosed.

On that last point I'm sure conservatives are just as eager to see the involvement of the Soroses and Axelrods of the world just as liberals are to see the Kochs and Roves in alleged astroturfing, no?

 

[the moops]

How can the IRS determine if they are political without investigating?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

How can the IRS determine if they are political without investigating?

That's part of the problem. Sorry if it's the FBI looking at anarchists, fascists and terrorists that's one thing, but otherwise the government has no business grading, judging or making determinations on our political speech.

Let's say a church is a church is a church and it's 2008. Then let's say that church is a Baptist church in downtown Cincinnati and it feels that Sen. Obama has to win Ohio to win the presidency. It decides to spend 75% of its contributions that year on voter registration efforts and local pro-Obama advertising and endorsements because a Pres. Obama would best serve the needs of the poor, its congregation believes the election of the first black president is an important societal goal, and they believe they can help him win Ohio to get there. This church is now open to investigations of what it says and writes by the Bush administration, is now a 527 political group and it must disclose its donors, and oh by the way those donations are no longer tax deductible?

I see an association protected by the 1st Amendment which is 1. penalized for daring to seek to effect the societal change it desires, and 2. a likely chilling effect because they may not want to go through all that.

 

[jonessed]

How can the IRS determine if they are political without investigating?

That's part of the problem. Sorry if it's the FBI looking at anarchists, fascists and terrorists that's one thing, but otherwise the government has no business grading, judging or making determinations on our political speech.

Wow. This is some outstanding circular logic.

Non-profits agree in advance not to take part in political activity in exchange for being tax exempt.

Wait! Some of these non-profits with political sounding names might actually be political?!

Better alert the IRS. They may need to look into this.

THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T BE LOOKING AT POLITICAL SPEECH!!1! Tyranny!!!!1

This seems to be a common misconception. They are free to support issues that are political as long as they aren't actively campaigning. For the act to be illegal it has to be tied to a specific campaign.This is really a distinction that should fall under the Justice department and not the IRS.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

How can the IRS determine if they are political without investigating?

That's part of the problem. Sorry if it's the FBI looking at anarchists, fascists and terrorists that's one thing, but otherwise the government has no business grading, judging or making determinations on our political speech.

Wow. This is some outstanding circular logic.

Non-profits agree in advance not to take part in political activity in exchange for being tax exempt.

Wait! Some of these non-profits with political sounding names might actually be political?!

Better alert the IRS. They may need to look into this.

THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T BE LOOKING AT POLITICAL SPEECH!!1! Tyranny!!!!1

Well I guess your response shouldn't be surprising considering you took out the entirety of the rest of my context.

It's not tyranny, I did not say that.

We all agree that the 527 process is ok, and I appreciate the feedback and information from others on that point.

I do think that political groups should have their donors disclosed. However I don't think it takes that long to have a determination made that a group is political rather than just purely social (and as stated the two concepts do overlap), and a matter of fact the Obama administration agreed because they have changed the rules on just that point.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

How can the IRS determine if they are political without investigating?

That's part of the problem. Sorry if it's the FBI looking at anarchists, fascists and terrorists that's one thing, but otherwise the government has no business grading, judging or making determinations on our political speech.

Wow. This is some outstanding circular logic.

Non-profits agree in advance not to take part in political activity in exchange for being tax exempt.

Wait! Some of these non-profits with political sounding names might actually be political?!

Better alert the IRS. They may need to look into this.

THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T BE LOOKING AT POLITICAL SPEECH!!1! Tyranny!!!!1

This seems to be a common misconception. They are free to support issues that are political as long as they aren't actively campaigning. For the act to be illegal it has to be tied to a specific campaign.This is really a distinction that should fall under the Justice department and not the IRS.

Thank you, great point, and I think we all agree that if a social organization receives payment for campaign activities, that should be illegal.

 

[Lutherman2112]

26 U.S. Code § 527 - Political organizations

Types of Advocacy Groups

 

[avoiding injuries]

Due to a "computer crash", the IRS lost all of Lois Lerner's emails to the White House and other democrat offices from Jan 2009 - Apr 2011. Seems legit.

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=384506

 

[MaxThreshold]

Due to a "computer crash", the IRS lost all of Lois Lerner's emails to the White House and other democrat offices from Jan 2009 - Apr 2011. Seems legit.

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=384506

OF Course. No cover up here at all.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Due to a "computer crash", the IRS lost all of Lois Lerner's emails to the White House and other democrat offices from Jan 2009 - Apr 2011. Seems legit.

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=384506

Whatthehell.

That is not legit, not ok.

 

[Politician Spock]

Due to a "computer crash", the IRS lost all of Lois Lerner's emails to the White House and other democrat offices from Jan 2009 - Apr 2011. Seems legit.

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=384506

Are their email admins stuck in 1994?

 

[Phil Elliott]

I wonder if they checked with the NSA.

 

[jonessed]

Due to a "computer crash", the IRS lost all of Lois Lerner's emails to the White House and other democrat offices from Jan 2009 - Apr 2011. Seems legit.

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=384506

What a bunch of slime balls.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

They destroyed emails. And Lerner took the 5th.

Well, if she were the mayor of New Orleans she would be well on her way to indictment right about now.

 

[tommyGunZ]

They destroyed emails. And Lerner took the 5th.

Well, if she were the mayor of New Orleans she would be well on her way to indictment right about now.

Pretty sure it was Obama himself pouring through email accts and deleting evidence himself. He and Lerner are co-conspirators.

 

[Courtjester]

They destroyed emails. And Lerner took the 5th.

Well, if she were the mayor of New Orleans she would be well on her way to indictment right about now.

Pretty sure it was Obama himself pouring through email accts and deleting evidence himself. He and Lerner are co-conspirators.

Oh come on Tommy, you think this is legit? If this was a Republican doing this, you would be losing your mind.

Doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum you fall on, this LOOKS really bad. I would love to try telling the IRS if I was being audited "Oh my hard drive crashed and I don't have those receipts." It would not fly and neither does this.

 

[MaxThreshold]

AND BENGHAZI!!!

I'm sad to see that the deaths of 4 Americans are hilarious to you. Anything for your Dear Leader, right?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

They destroyed emails. And Lerner took the 5th.

Well, if she were the mayor of New Orleans she would be well on her way to indictment right about now.

Pretty sure it was Obama himself pouring through email accts and deleting evidence himself. He and Lerner are co-conspirators.

See, this is what I'm talking about - a competent administration would be making damn sure these emails would be maintained if just to prevent the bad optics of this.

The continued argument, really the only alternative, is hey they screwed up, again. And again. And again. And again.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Will be interesting to find out the rest of the story on this.

For example, just recently a Republican Member of Congress said that the Administration had used the IRS to harass conservative groups.

But then it turned out that he'd sent a specific information request asking only about IRS reviews of conservative groups and after he got the information he pretended that conservative groups had been 'targeted' just to try and make the President look bad get a lot of mouthbreathers all bent out of shape.

So conservative groups WEREN'T targeted?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

They destroyed emails. And Lerner took the 5th.

Well, if she were the mayor of New Orleans she would be well on her way to indictment right about now.

Pretty sure it was Obama himself pouring through email accts and deleting evidence himself. He and Lerner are co-conspirators.

Due to a supposed computer crash, the agency only has Lerner emails to and from other IRS employees during this time frame. The IRS claims it cannot produce emails written only to or from Lerner and outside agencies or groups, such as the White House, Treasury, Department of Justice, FEC, or Democrat offices.

By the way this kind of thing is done on a server, mailbox, account level - if the "computer" crashes then all emails disappear, no?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Due to a "computer crash", the IRS lost all of Lois Lerner's emails to the White House and other democrat offices from Jan 2009 - Apr 2011. Seems legit.

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=384506

So we still have all of the e-mails from Lerner to those in the IRS ordering and/or approving the Cincinnati office creating those list of names to flag?

 

[timschochet]

Will be interesting to find out the rest of the story on this.

For example, just recently a Republican Member of Congress said that the Administration had used the IRS to harass conservative groups.

But then it turned out that he'd sent a specific information request asking only about IRS reviews of conservative groups and after he got the information he pretended that conservative groups had been 'targeted' just to try and make the President look bad get a lot of mouthbreathers all bent out of shape.

Why are there suddenly avatars around here of buff, half naked men? Have we have become a gay forum while I wasn't paying attention? (NTTAWWT).

 

[Boston]

Where's Woodward and Bernstein when we need them...

 

[Sand]

Due to a "computer crash", the IRS lost all of Lois Lerner's emails to the White House and other democrat offices from Jan 2009 - Apr 2011. Seems legit.

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=384506

So we still have all of the e-mails from Lerner to those in the IRS ordering and/or approving the Cincinnati office creating those list of names to flag?

Evidently they reconstructed Lerner's internal emails from other internal (i.e. colleagues' computers), but lost everything that went solely outside. My two peso PI skills say that after the crash Lerner wiped her own computer and left it to the IRS to reconstruct things from external sources. Question is how many emails were solely sent to outside folks. As a manager I know that most of my external emails get copied to someone internal, as well.

The one thing that's odd is that this was squelched for a year+. Why not just come out and inform Congress of this way back when? Weird.

 

[Todd Andrews]

It is sickening how those poor conservative groups have been mistreated. They should be allowed to foottap in their wide stances in peace. Why would Obama be forcing this so far down our tender throats?

Why?

 

[MaxThreshold]

It is sickening how those poor conservative groups have been mistreated. They should be allowed to foottap in their wide stances in peace. Why would Obama be forcing this so far down our tender throats?

Why?

Wut?

 

[tommyboy]

Oh look, we ####ed up! Sorry

 

[3C's]

Will be interesting to find out the rest of the story on this.

For example, just recently a Republican Member of Congress said that the Administration had used the IRS to harass conservative groups.

But then it turned out that he'd sent a specific information request asking only about IRS reviews of conservative groups and after he got the information he pretended that conservative groups had been 'targeted' just to try and make the President look bad get a lot of mouthbreathers all bent out of shape.

Why are there suddenly avatars around here of buff, half naked men? Have we have become a gay forum while I wasn't paying attention? (NTTAWWT).

World Cup soccer always brings it out of them.

 

[avoiding injuries]

NBC decided not to even cover this on the today show, although they do have it on their web page (keep scrolling down).

 

[Quez]

They should just ask the NSA for the emails.

 

[Hang 10]

Transparency

 

[3C's]

Transparency

looks like those emails are now.