Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    11:21 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: IRS Admits Targeting Conservative Groups Back to Topics
mudtoe

Champion Author
Cincinnati

Posts:13,217
Points:1,739,230
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: May 10, 2013 1:47:04 PM

IRS Admits Targeting Conservative Groups

From the article:

"The Internal Revenue Service inappropriately flagged conservative political groups for additional reviews during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status, a top IRS official said Friday.

Organizations were singled out because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their applications for tax-exempt status, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups."

...

Many conservative groups complained during the election that they were being harassed by the IRS. They accused the agency of frustrating their attempts to become tax exempt by sending them lengthy, intrusive questionnaires.

The forms, which the groups made available at the time, sought information about group members' political activities, including details of their postings on social networking websites and about family members.


==============================================================================


The IRS claimed that this was done by "low level" employees, and that there was no political motivation, or involvement by higher ups. Yea, right! Just by random chance some low level hourly employees got to work one morning and on a whim decided to randomly target certain non-profits, all of which just happened to be conservative, without any input or direction from their boss. But hey, there was no political motivation here and no higher ups knew about it. And just by chance their ultimate boss, Obama, was running for re-election, and just by even more random chance the groups they targeted were opposed to their boss. It's all just a series of wonderful coincidences here, that weren't orchestrated by anybody, no sir. Nothing to see here folks, it's just business at usual. Maybe these same people were the ones who on a whim changed the Benghazi talking points.


mudtoe


P.S. These same people will now have access to all your health information, and I'm sure that no health secrets about their bosses' political opponents will ever be leaked; nah, can't happen.





[Edited by: mudtoe at 5/10/2013 1:49:21 PM EST]
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
owt
Champion Author Tennessee

Posts:10,318
Points:1,591,910
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 19, 2014 10:51:37 AM

...and no one is punished, just allowed to retire, get a higher position and a pay raise. Who is being jailed....NO ONE.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:15,249
Points:2,166,730
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 17, 2014 11:21:58 AM

I don't think that any reasonable person can ascertain that the IRS was running a scam, the question now is how deep and how widespread the corruption was, and whether or not we have more cancerous IRS staff to remove.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:18,787
Points:1,694,205
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 17, 2014 10:42:49 AM

From Lerner:

"I had a question today about OCS [Microsoft Office Communications Server]. I was cautioning folks about email and how we have several occasions where Congress has asked for emails and there has been an electronic search for responsive emails – so we need to be cautious about what we say in emails. Someone asked if OCS conversations were also searchable – I don’t know, but told them I would get back to them. Do you know?"The response from IRS IT official Maria Hooke, however, was worse:

"No, the IRS does not routinely save chat communications – unless employees intentionally take steps to preserve their conversation. These chat communications are not saved – and this is critical – despite the fact that “the functionality exists within the software.”

She was trying to see what everyone could track...
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:72,673
Points:2,891,195
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jul 16, 2014 3:03:40 PM

Maybe she should have just sent an owl.....
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,217
Points:1,739,230
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jul 16, 2014 3:00:34 PM

johnny: "One more thing I just remembered. Lerner was interested in a communication system that was not backed up and couldn't be retrieved."


And shortly after that her hard drive, containing information from the system that was supposed to be backed up and archived, goes belly up. And the IRS tech people, while supposedly undertaking "heroic" measures to retrieve those email from the crashed hard drive, never bothered to restore those emails from the backup tapes for the Exchange email server, which did exist at the time. It makes one wonder whether "heroic" efforts were made to preserve the emails, or if the "heroic" efforts made were in fact made to ensure that precisely the opposite occurred so that damning evidence could be permanently destroyed.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:7,642
Points:1,094,535
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Jul 16, 2014 11:32:12 AM

One more thing I just remembered. Lerner was interested in a communication system that was not backed up and couldn't be retrieved. This is also a violation of the data retention laws. By attempting to conduct business outside the system she was violating the law.
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:7,642
Points:1,094,535
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Jul 16, 2014 11:13:57 AM

I just saw a new article about a nonprofit that sued the IRS in 2010 for its unconstructional handling of 401-C applications. This was about two years before the sudden rash of hard drive crashes, subsequent recycling of tapes and the termination of the contract with the back up company.

I work for a company that has to follow the data retention laws. We have training every year on what we must do in regards to document archiving and it is spelled out in a very detailed policy. If we even suspect that a lawsuit or FOIA request is possible we are required to hold all data that may pertain to the case. This includes all physical paper documents, all electronic records and all voice mails. I find it hard to believe that the same government that set up these laws doesn't have similar policies.

What this boils down to is if the IRS destroyed these hard drives they did it in clear violation of the law. If the IRS did let its contract with the archive company expire with our protecting the backed up information they again violated the law.

This isn't McCarthyism. Its more like when Nixon destroyed the White House tapes or when Oliver North shredded document. The only difference is the letter behind the name of the person or people being protected. Think back to the Oliver North case. Everyone blamed Reagan for North's conduct. Why should Obama be treated any differently.


[Edited by: johnnyg1200 at 7/16/2014 11:14:42 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,772
Points:506,565
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jul 16, 2014 11:10:25 AM

"Weas, are these the same people who constantly referred to GWB as "shrub" and posted pictures of him resembling a chimp?"

I'm gonna guess they are not the same people - just counterparts to their extremist friends on the Right.

You can not like the man, yet still respect the Office. Just sayin'...

Defend what you will, though. It shows your true character.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,772
Points:506,565
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jul 16, 2014 11:07:58 AM

"I bet you felt the same way when people called Bush dumb and made fun of him...didn't you?"

Of course, I voted for him too.

"Obama is receiving just as much respect as Bush did even on this website."

So that makes it right? Hhmm....
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:18,787
Points:1,694,205
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 16, 2014 9:48:25 AM

"Opponents of the President used to at least respect the Office. What a shame..."

Already asked but when did that change? I bet you felt the same way when people called Bush dumb and made fun of him...didn't you? Obama is receiving just as much respect as Bush did even on this website.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:72,673
Points:2,891,195
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jul 16, 2014 9:07:27 AM

Weas, are these the same people who constantly referred to GWB as "shrub" and posted pictures of him resembling a chimp?
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,772
Points:506,565
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jul 16, 2014 8:51:47 AM

"What is that piece of garbage in the White House?

A lying two-faced muslim Traitor-in-Chief ?"

Tell us how you really feel.... <s>

Opponents of the President used to at least respect the Office. What a shame...
Profile Pic
Lucchese
Champion Author Oakland

Posts:3,335
Points:132,015
Joined:Mar 2007
Message Posted: Jul 13, 2014 2:20:48 PM



What is that piece of garbage in the White House?

A lying two-faced muslim Traitor-in-Chief ?


The Traitor is exposed daily ...
All subordinates are selected/promoted by their skills at lying
Profile Pic
Lucchese
Champion Author Oakland

Posts:3,335
Points:132,015
Joined:Mar 2007
Message Posted: Jul 12, 2014 11:20:17 AM


IRS just happens to lose all email for the seven people under subpoena ?


Just a random accident
Profile Pic
mweyant
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:7,562
Points:1,401,635
Joined:Feb 2010
Message Posted: Jul 11, 2014 6:12:23 PM

District Judge Reggie B. Walton
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:18,787
Points:1,694,205
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 11, 2014 5:10:23 PM

A second judge has said...show us how you lost those emails again!
Profile Pic
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:23,841
Points:625,890
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Jul 11, 2014 11:34:58 AM



Thank you mweyant for the information about Judge Sullivan.

Let's hope that he has the courage of his convictions and fidelity to the Constitution because the Democrats are going to release a whole bunch of whoop*** on him.

And probably call him an Uncle Tom for starters.

Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,217
Points:1,739,230
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jul 11, 2014 11:34:25 AM

The noose may be tightening. I'll bet that a backup copy of those emails exist somewhere. Often the I/T people who take care of the servers make extra backup copies for themselves before they make changes or apply software updates to the server, just in case their changes go bad and the production copy has a problem (people lose their jobs if they make updates to a server that go bad and there is no way to back them out, so they make these extra backup copies to cover their butts). They frequently keep these extra copies in their own desk for a while after the changes and sometimes forget about them later.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
mweyant
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:7,562
Points:1,401,635
Joined:Feb 2010
Message Posted: Jul 11, 2014 5:12:18 AM

Here you are, AnotherOne

District Judge Emmet B. Sullivan

Profile Pic
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:23,841
Points:625,890
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Jul 11, 2014 3:15:11 AM


WASHINGTON -- Congressman Steve Stockman Thursday filed a resolution directing the House Sergeant-At-Arms to arrest former IRS Director of the Exempt Organizations Unit Lois Lerner on charges of contempt of Congress.

And The New York Times says they have the power to bring Lerner in!

Congress Has a Way of Making Witnesses Speak: Its Own Jail

"If the Justice Department refuses to enforce the subpoenas, as seems likely, Congress will have to decide whether to do so. Washington lawyers are dusting off an old but apparently sturdy doctrine called “inherent contempt” that gives Congress the power to bring the recalcitrant witnesses in — by force, if necessary."

"This country has seen far too much of this sort of dismissal of Congress’s authority. There is a simple way to avoid a constitutional showdown: If Congress holds witnesses in contempt, the Justice Department should enforce the subpoenas. Mr. Mukasey would need to focus not on the White House’s interests, but rather on his duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed."

And we know from liberals that if the NYT says it, it is TRUE!

;-)



[Edited by: AnotherOne at 7/11/2014 3:17:29 AM EST]
Profile Pic
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:23,841
Points:625,890
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Jul 11, 2014 2:23:49 AM



mweyant, that is wonderful news about Judge Sullivan ordering the IRS to explain under oath.

Now we may be getting somewhere.

It will be interesting to see how Obama flaunts and disobeys the law this time.

What is he going to do? Tell the judge, "So sue me!"

Maybe the judge will do MORE than that.

Although I would like to know if this judge is a liberal or an Obama appointee.

NO amount of CORRUPTION from Obama and the Democrats will surprise me.



[Edited by: AnotherOne at 7/11/2014 2:25:53 AM EST]
Profile Pic
mweyant
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:7,562
Points:1,401,635
Joined:Feb 2010
Message Posted: Jul 10, 2014 10:37:24 PM

Judge demands IRS explain lost emails

7-10-14

"A federal judge on Thursday ordered the IRS to detail under oath how some of former agency official Lois Lerner’s emails went missing, as well as any potential methods for recovering them.

Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court in Washington gave the Internal Revenue Service exactly a month — until Aug. 10 — to file a report, which he demanded as part of a lawsuit from a conservative watchdog, Judicial Watch, against the agency.

Koskinen[IRS Commissioner] has said that the inspector general, which first outlined the agency’s treatment of Tea Party groups, asked the IRS not to interview witnesses or turn over documents until its investigation is complete. Sullivan said the IRS's explanation due next month should outline how that investigation affects the court proceedings.

But Sullivan said the inspector general’s investigation shouldn’t stop the IRS from detailing under oath what happened to Lerner’s emails, leaving Judicial Watch to claim victory after the hearing."

Profile Pic
Grizdad
Champion Author Montana

Posts:7,706
Points:1,113,590
Joined:Oct 2010
Message Posted: Jul 10, 2014 11:31:55 AM

Like to get to the truth so we can move on.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,217
Points:1,739,230
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jul 10, 2014 11:20:43 AM

LL: "I was cautioning folks about email and how we have had several occasions where Congress has asked for emails and there has been an electronic search for responsive emails — so we need to be cautious about what we say in emails,"


And amazingly enough her hard drive, containing all those searchable emails, suddenly crashed and became unrecoverable. And even more amazingly, after "heroic" efforts by the I/T people to extract those emails from her hard drive "for her", they didn't bother to make a far less than "heroic" effort to just restore them from the server backup tapes.

Yup, nothing to see here folks. There's not a smidgen of corruption in IRS. No sir, not a smidgen.


mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 7/10/2014 11:21:11 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,772
Points:506,565
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jul 10, 2014 10:28:39 AM

"--The key words to your reply is <<<"look deeper into all applicants">>>, not look deeper into all conservative applicants, again, there is quite a difference."

Which I also addressed as a failing of the IRS, not of the SCOTUS...

"--So you aren't familiar with the history up to the case, just the ruling itself I see."

So because the Left found a loophole, as you claim, instead of closing the loophole it was a good idea to just get rid of the restrictions because the Right engaged in the same loophole? You really think 'that' is the reason for the Roberts Ruling in Citizens United?

"--In another thread about a gay baker, discrimination is not allowed by law, yet apparently, you cannot form opinion about the legality of the government effectively discriminating against conservative applicants?"

Show me the law, similar to the one you referenced regarding the one the homophobic baker failed to follow in Colorado, that applies? I haven't researched the subject, so like I said, they could have violated the law. I simply do not know. It isn't a matter of opinion whether a law has been broken... Scary that you would even post such nonsense.

"--No, that would be solid sarcasm."

And irrelevant either way ;)
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:15,249
Points:2,166,730
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 10, 2014 3:39:37 AM

Weasel: <<<"Nope. Not at all. The SCOTUS ruling forced them to have to look deeper into all applicants - how they decided who to audit and what was asked of whom during the audit has nothing to do with the SCOTUS ruling. Thanks for trying to put words in my mouth so you can try to keep arguing with me though ;)">>>

--The key words to your reply is <<<"look deeper into all applicants">>>, not look deeper into all conservative applicants, again, there is quite a difference.

<<<"Which has nothing to do with the SCOTUS ruling, so.... more strawmen.">>>

--So you aren't familiar with the history up to the case, just the ruling itself I see.

<<<"I can't debate if it was criminal or not - all I know is that it wasn't right although Lerner pleading the 5th doesn't help the IRS's case regarding if their actions were in fact illegal.">>>

--In another thread about a gay baker, discrimination is not allowed by law, yet apparently, you cannot form opinion about the legality of the government effectively discriminating against conservative applicants?

EZExit: <<<"--Your attempted downplaying of the IRS actions is akin to telling people in the path of a tidal wave that they might feel a little moisture...">>>

Weasel: <<<"Hyperbole.">>>

--No, that would be solid sarcasm.
Profile Pic
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:23,841
Points:625,890
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Jul 10, 2014 12:58:19 AM



There are SO MANY Obama scandals that it is hard to keep up with all of them.

That probably is part of his strategy ... overwhelm Americans so that they cannot concentrate on the CORRUPTION!

Here is more -

Lois Lerner cautioned against email chatter amid lawmaker probes

"Former IRS official Lois Lerner said she warned her colleagues to be careful about what they write in emails amid congressional inquiries, according to new emails released by House Oversight Republicans.

She also asked whether the IRS’s internal messaging system could be searched, in the same email to an IRS colleague. It was sent April 9, 2013, less than two weeks after the IRS inspector general that unearthed the tea party targeting practice shared a draft report with the agency.

“I was cautioning folks about email and how we have had several occasions where Congress has asked for emails and there has been an electronic search for responsive emails — so we need to be cautious about what we say in emails,” she wrote to Maria Hooke, the director of business systems planning for the tax-exempt division. “Someone asked if OCS conversations were also searchable — I don’t know. … Do you know?”"

CORRUPTION on a scale unseen and at the HIGHEST level of government.

Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,772
Points:506,565
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jul 9, 2014 1:09:27 PM

"a SCOTUS ruling forced them to audit applicants this way. This is the picture that you want to paint, isn't it?"

Nope. Not at all. The SCOTUS ruling forced them to have to look deeper into all applicants - how they decided who to audit and what was asked of whom during the audit has nothing to do with the SCOTUS ruling. Thanks for trying to put words in my mouth so you can try to keep arguing with me though ;)

"What caused the problem in the first place was the liberals making infomercial movies on their candidates to skirt the law, and conservative groups following suit."

Which has nothing to do with the SCOTUS ruling, so.... more strawmwen.

"--Apparently the IRS had no problem in thoroughly examining applicants, if they were conservative in nature. The simple explanation of IRS mistakes is that it is actually criminal activity occurring in our government."

I can't debate if it was criminal or not - all I know is that it wasn't right although Lerner pleading the 5th doesn't help the IRS's case regarding if their actions were in fact illegal.

"--Your attempted downplaying of the IRS actions is akin to telling people in the path of a tidal wave that they might feel a little moisture..."

Hyperbole.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,772
Points:506,565
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jul 9, 2014 1:03:45 PM

"Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, football or baseball scouts? Which scouts you talking about? :-)"

:)
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:18,787
Points:1,694,205
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 9, 2014 1:02:31 PM

"Had the SCOUTS ruling not been made, NO groups would have been subjected to the scrutiny."

Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, football or baseball scouts? Which scouts you talking about? :-)
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:15,249
Points:2,166,730
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 9, 2014 11:23:45 AM

Weasel: <<<"Correct - only a cursory glance was required to confirm that 0% of a groups funding with said tax exemption status was spent on political causes.">>>

--ROFL! What caused the problem in the first place was the liberals making infomercial movies on their candidates to skirt the law, and conservative groups following suit. Cursory glance indeed! :::rolling eyes:::

<<<"Now that is a very grey area, requiring far more attention. And not surprisingly, many more groups have since applied for said status, further complicating the issue. The IRS is limited in its resources...

Again, not an excuse for their actions, but a simple explanation as to why the mistakes were ever able to present themselves in the first place.">>>

--Apparently the IRS had no problem in thoroughly examining applicants, if they were conservative in nature. The simple explanation of IRS mistakes is that it is actually criminal activity occurring in our government.

<<<"As I said below, the Right was scrutinized more than the Left - clearly an error on the part of the IRS which needs to be corrected moving forward as they 'should' be impartial.">>>

--Your attempted downplaying of the IRS actions is akin to telling people in the path of a tidal wave that they might feel a little moisture...

<<<"I suppose those 6 hard drives would not have mysteriously crashed about the same time if SCOTUS didn't make that ruling either, huh?">>>

<<<"Another strawman. The '6' crashed drives 'appears' to be a silly story conjured up by those trying to CYA themselves within the IRS...">>>

--Why were they CYA'ing themselves? They were simply overwhelmed with work, and ontop of that, a SCOTUS ruling forced them to audit applicants this way. This is the picture that you want to paint, isn't it?
:::shaking head:::
Profile Pic
mexicomaria
Champion Author Minnesota

Posts:26,483
Points:1,710,250
Joined:May 2007
Message Posted: Jul 9, 2014 10:52:10 AM

Who does Weasle remind you of...?
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,772
Points:506,565
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jul 9, 2014 8:58:27 AM

"Are you contending that no groups were scrutinized before the SCOTUS ruling?"

Correct - only a cursory glance was required to confirm that 0% of a groups funding with said tax exemption status was spent on political causes.

Now that is a very grey area, requiring far more attention. And not surprisingly, many more groups have since applied for said status, further complicating the issue. The IRS is limited in its resources...

Again, not an excuse for their actions, but a simple explanation as to why the mistakes were ever able to present themselves in the first place.

"And the IRS felt forced to ask these groups about what prayers they said, amongst many other irrelevant things due to SCOTUS?"

As I said below, the Right was scrutinized more than the Left - clearly an error on the part of the IRS which needs to be corrected moving forward as they 'should' be impartial.

"I suppose those 6 hard drives would not have mysteriously crashed about the same time if SCOTUS didn't make that ruling either, huh?"

Another strawman. The '6' crashed drives 'appears' to be a silly story conjured up by those trying to CYA themselves within the IRS...
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,192
Points:4,439,230
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jul 8, 2014 5:16:37 PM

Weaslespit, ""You claimed that they targeted conservative groups due to a ruling by SCOTUS that Lois Lerner and others did not like, and it was this ruling that made them do it. Did you not?"

I did not, hence your continued inability to understand what is being posted. The fact that the IRS had to audit 'any' of these groups was due to the SCOTUS ruling - the fact that the IRS leaned on the Right was the failure of the IRS... Had the SCOUTS ruling not been made, NO groups would have been subjected to the scrutiny."

Are you contending that no groups were scrutinized before the SCOTUS ruling?

And the IRS felt forced to ask these groups about what prayers they said, amongst many other irrelevant things due to SCOTUS?

I suppose those 6 hard drives would not have mysteriously crashed about the same time if SCOTUS didn't make that ruling either, huh?
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,772
Points:506,565
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jul 8, 2014 4:03:10 PM

"If they really believed the IRS did nothing wrong"

Too bad he has me on ignore, he could see for himself that I do not think that the IRS did nothing wrong...

"has been used by this administration to target their political enemies."

This is the unsubstantiated leap where Tea Partiers run their argument aground with lack of facts...

What a stupid way to target political enemies. A tax exemption? Really? That is all that these conspiracy theorists think it takes to silence their enemies?

SMH

[Edited by: Weaslespit at 7/8/2014 4:05:40 PM EST]
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,217
Points:1,739,230
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jul 8, 2014 3:58:27 PM

EZ: "-You're entitled to your opinions, I'll give you that, even when they are wrong, and you additionally have no use for hearings to investigate the circumstances further, that seems quite close minded and partisan to me... "


If they really believed the IRS did nothing wrong, then they would be in favor of a special prosecutor being appointed because then the IRS would be cleared by a neutral party who both had the authority to thoroughly investigate the matter and was free of interference by the party in power who is being accused of abusing it. What better slap down could there be to the Republicans who are being forced to do this against their will by the evil Tea Party, than the IRS being cleared by an unbiased special prosecutor who is above the political fray?

The fact that this is the absolute last thing they would like to see happen is it's own answer to the question of whether or not they truly believe that the IRS has been used by this administration to target their political enemies.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,772
Points:506,565
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jul 8, 2014 10:27:20 AM

"--Sure, and you have stated as well that any investigation of this is a partisan waste of time."

Again, not even close. So you are reading, but not comprehending, what is being posted - got it.

"--Auditing is not improper, it is a daily function of the IRS. Targeting people by political affiliation IS improper, it is NOT a function of the IRS. Big difference, No?"

How else would you narrow your scope of potential candidates to audit? Surely not 'every' group applying for said tax-exempt status is either a Progressive or Tea Party group?

What was wrong is that a significantly disproportionate number of one group over another was audited, and what appears to have been a more 'thorough' examination of one group. Certainly that needs to be corrected as there doesn't appear to be a reversal of the Citizens United ruling anywhere on the horizon.

Again - the SCOTUS ruling is what opened this can of worms in the first place - it would never have been possible had it not been for Roberts' court further complicating the Law. Yes, the IRS was wrong, but they were humans reacting to the change in the Law. The more complicated the tax code gets, the more we will see these kinds of mistakes from the IRS. the IRS needs black-and-white, not grey, to be able to function efficiently and without the influence of corruption.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:15,249
Points:2,166,730
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 7, 2014 7:09:10 PM

Weasel: <<<"Not even close to what I have been saying. Are you even reading what I am posting??">>>

--Sure, and you have stated as well that any investigation of this is a partisan waste of time. Just below you have this all chalked up to a court ruling you don't like...

<<<"Yes, more Right groups were targeted for auditing. Why are you getting caught-up in semantics? Surely you are above that?">>>

--Auditing is not improper, it is a daily function of the IRS. Targeting people by political affiliation IS improper, it is NOT a function of the IRS. Big difference, No?

<<<"Still not sure how my saying that the IRS has made mistakes that need to be corrected is my giving them a free pass - but hey, reality hasn't seemed to stop your recent posts, so I guess you'll just respond to what you would have 'liked' for me to post once again?">>>

--You're entitled to your opinions, I'll give you that, even when they are wrong, and you additionally have no use for hearings to investigate the circumstances further, that seems quite close minded and partisan to me...
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,772
Points:506,565
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jul 7, 2014 11:54:31 AM

"--People such as yourself do not want any more hearings or investigation of what had happened here. If this is ignored as you would have it, it would certainly guarantee that it happens again with future administrations."

Not even close to what I have been saying. Are you even reading what I am posting??

"--The right claims that they were targeted, NOT audited. Sorry. (Hey, for a *hint*, look at the topic title, it quite clearly states "targeting" right there in the heading, it's even in bold type, plain as day)"

Yes, more Right groups were targeted for auditing. Why are you getting caught-up in semantics? Surely you are above that?

"The Citizens United case is not the "get out of jail free" card that you want to pass out to your IRS friends."

Still not sure how my saying that the IRS has made mistakes that need to be corrected is my giving them a free pass - but hey, reality hasn't seemed to stop your recent posts, so I guess you'll just respond to what you would have 'liked' for me to post once again?
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:15,249
Points:2,166,730
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 7, 2014 11:49:01 AM

Weasel: <<<"Who says that they shouldn't? By ONLY correcting these mistakes however, it only guarantees that it is possible for it to happen again...">>>

--People such as yourself do not want any more hearings or investigation of what had happened here. If this is ignored as you would have it, it would certainly guarantee that it happens again with future administrations.

<<<: That link shows Progressive groups were also audited, which contradicts the claims of the Right.">>>

--The right claims that they were targeted, NOT audited. Sorry. (Hey, for a *hint*, look at the topic title, it quite clearly states "targeting" right there in the heading, it's even in bold type, plain as day)

<<<"What is DOES do is turn a black-and-white law and make it grey, thus opening it up for human interpretation which is most certainly fallible - as shown already.">>>

It loosened the scrutiny of the activities of these groups, not increased the scrutiny of conservatives. The Citizens United case is not the "get out of jail free" card that you want to pass out to your IRS friends.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,772
Points:506,565
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jul 7, 2014 10:31:46 AM

"You seem to have forgotten the Judicial Branch INTERPRETS the laws. It does not have the power to Legislate."

The changes made to the law enabling political funding that we see now were due to the ruling. Bottom-line. To suggest anything else is to tap-dance around the issue.

"Then again, perhaps you've grown accustomed to 'Progressive' Judges making decisions based upon their political view points."

Which is a different problem worthy of its own thread.

"but it did seem to mollify some of the Supreme Courts other poor decisions."

Curious to know what other decisions you felt were poor?
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,327
Points:1,802,445
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jul 7, 2014 10:03:03 AM

Weasel, >>LOL - Citizens United CHANGED the law since Roberts and his cronies didn't like the way that it was written SMH…<<
~
You seem to have forgotten the Judicial Branch INTERPRETS the laws. It does not have the power to Legislate.

Then again, perhaps you've grown accustomed to 'Progressive' Judges making decisions based upon their political view points.

Personally, I disagree with this particular decision but it did seem to mollify some of the Supreme Courts other poor decisions.
~
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,772
Points:506,565
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jul 7, 2014 9:45:39 AM

"Their partisan operatives got caught red handed, so what defense can they offer? It appears that the defense they are offering is the same one Obama is using, as in they don't like the law as written (Citizens United in this case)..."

LOL - Citizens United CHANGED the law since Roberts and his cronies didn't like the way that it was written!

SMH...

"Well, what can they say nstr. Their partisan operatives got caught red handed, so what defense can they offer?"

When one blocks another for simply offering opposing viewpoints, it is no small wonder that comments like this are made when generally only snippets of what is posted are quoted and made visible...
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,772
Points:506,565
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jul 7, 2014 9:42:24 AM

"The only "mistake" they think they made was getting caught."

Perhaps...

"The KEY word THEY used was TARGETTED, not audited! And then they blamed it on two guys from Cincinnati! And Obama called it "bone-headed"."

They used key words to find groups to audit. Was it the best method available? I dunno, I am not privy to that kind of information.... Certainly the initial reaction by the IRS to blame two 'rogue agents' in Cincy was ridiculous...

"You claimed that they targeted conservative groups due to a ruling by SCOTUS that Lois Lerner and others did not like, and it was this ruling that made them do it. Did you not?"

I did not, hence your continued inability to understand what is being posted. The fact that the IRS had to audit 'any' of these groups was due to the SCOTUS ruling - the fact that the IRS leaned on the Right was the failure of the IRS... Had the SCOUTS ruling not been made, NO groups would have been subjected to the scrutiny.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,772
Points:506,565
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jul 7, 2014 9:35:32 AM

"--Because it is illegal, it is immoral, it is criminal, it must be corrected, the responsible people must be held accountable."

Who says that they shouldn't? By ONLY correcting these mistakes however, it only guarantees that it is possible for it to happen again...

"--Your previous links substantiate my position, not yours."

That link shows Progressive groups were also audited, which contradicts the claims of the Right.

"--The ruling, once again, does NOT permit the IRS to apply standards solely based upon political persuasion."

What is DOES do is turn a black-and-white law and make it grey, thus opening it up for human interpretation which is most certainly fallible - as shown already.

"What part of this are you having trouble understanding?"

I keep asking you the same thing...
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,217
Points:1,739,230
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jul 4, 2014 3:37:31 PM

Well, what can they say nstr. Their partisan operatives got caught red handed, so what defense can they offer? It appears that the defense they are offering is the same one Obama is using, as in they don't like the law as written (Citizens United in this case), and therefore that justifies illegal behavior to nullify what they don't like. Isn't that exactly what Obama is doing with things like Obamacare, immigration, recess appointments, etc.?


mudtoe
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,192
Points:4,439,230
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jul 4, 2014 8:20:12 AM

Weaslespit, ""So you are saying that the IRS broke the law because they did not like the Citizens United ruling???"

LOL! :)

This guy loves to make things up, doesn't he? Why even bother quoting us..."

Were laws broken regarding the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS?

You claimed that they targeted conservative groups due to a ruling by SCOTUS that Lois Lerner and others did not like, and it was this ruling that made them do it. Did you not?

THESE are your words: " Ask yourself - 'why did the IRS audit these applications'? Was it because of corruption? Nay, it was because of the previous SCOTUS ruling in the Citizens United case."
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,192
Points:4,439,230
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jul 4, 2014 8:13:55 AM

Weaslespit, "I am not sure why you are still hung-up on the IRS mistakes - we all know that they screwed-up here."

The only "mistake" they think they made was getting caught.

""Weaslespit, simple question: Was the IRS lying when they admitted that they targeted conservative groups?"

Of course not. The IRS did audit Conservative Groups. They also audited Progressive groups. The simple distinction is that they audited more Conservative groups."

The KEY word THEY used was TARGETTED, not audited! And then they blamed it on two guys from Cincinnati! And Obama called it "bone-headed".



[Edited by: nstrdnvstr at 7/4/2014 8:16:16 AM EST]
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:7,642
Points:1,094,535
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Jul 3, 2014 11:36:56 PM

>>>You can learn a lot from a bureaucratic paper trail. <<<

Any bets as to whether or not the hard drives the "bureaucratic paper trail" was on crashed and were recycled?

I have a feeling that we have only seen the tip of the iceberg of crashed hard drives that were recycled.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:15,249
Points:2,166,730
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 3, 2014 3:05:46 PM

Weasel: <<<"See the previous links...">>>

--Your previous links substantiate my position, not yours.

<<<"I am not sure why you are still hung-up on the IRS mistakes - we all know that they screwed-up here. Some conservative groups even got fed-up with the run-around they received and withdrew their application, meaning they still spent their money on political ads as they saw fit, just not with a tax exemption status.">>>

--Because it is illegal, it is immoral, it is criminal, it must be corrected, the responsible people must be held accountable.

<<<"In the mean time, NONE of this would have happened had the SCOTUS not opened Pandora's Box with their ruling. The Roberts Court is slowly driving us towards the cliff while the Dems and GOP'ers fight over which gear the car should be in.">>>

--The ruling, once again, does NOT permit the IRS to apply standards solely based upon political persuasion. What part of this are you having trouble understanding?
Post a reply Back to Topics