So many scandals, this one needs its own thread. We know the IRS inappropriately targeted conservatives. Only a few are denying this is a problem or in one case, saying it's their own fault for trying to follow the law (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113217/irs-tea-party-scandal-conservative-political-correctness-action#).

Most acknowledge the outrage that the most feared agency in the land was using it's power to bully conservatives and infringe on their rights. I'm sure some new narrative will emerge now that Obama has fired the acting head even though he was leaving next month anyway.

One here is stubbornly sticking to the defense that other groups were denied tax exempt status even though that's a) irrelevant and b) irrelevant. The scoop came from the IRS itself in it's faux apology and admission to unfairly, and I say illegally, targeting ONLY conservative groups.

So just for fun anyway, are their any liberal groups claiming they were unfairly targeted? Were liberal groups asked for information on donors, entire printed websites, board meeting minutes, attendees, past, present and future members and activities?

Were they ever asked for a list of everyone they "had ever trained, or planned to train? (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324716/Document-IRS-ordered-conservative-educational-group-turn-list-high-school-college-students-trained.html)"

Or my favorite, were they asked to pledge not to protest a certain group (http://washingtonexaminer.com/report-irs-denied-tax-exempt-status-to-pro-lifers-on-behalf-of-planned-parenthood/article/2529750)?


“In one case, the IRS withheld approval of an application for tax exempt status for Coalition for Life of Iowa. In a phone call to Coalition for Life of Iowa leaders on June 6, 2009, the IRS agent ‘Ms. Richards’ told the group to send a letter to the IRS with the entire board’s signatures stating that, under perjury of the law, they do not picket/protest or organize groups to picket or protest outside of Planned Parenthood,” the Thomas More Society announced today. “Once the IRS received this letter, their application would be approved.”

First of all, a 501(c)4 is not prohibited from being involved in politics (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-14/don-t-buy-the-social-welfare-defense-of-the-irs.html), so you can throw that defense of the IRS out the window.

Whatever their goal was, what the IRS did is indefensible, inexcusable and an egregious violation of the public trust. And no, I won't stop hollering because of Obama's attempt at damage control yesterday.

We need a special prosecutor to investigate this, I do not trust this administration to investigate itself, particularly in light of the DoJ snooping on the media and possibly Congress and what typically happens to whistle blowers in this administration.

But here's your chance anyway to defend the IRS, sweep this under the rug, blame SCOTUS or continue mocking the real, now validated, concerns of those darn right-wingers or whatever. Or you can join me in standing strong for a full accounting, full accountability and reform so American citizens never have to feel threatened by their own government again.

What say you?

Lots of internet noise is being made today that this isn't new. That much is absolutely correct.

Nixon was impeached for this very thing (Article 2, Specification 1).

The one new thing seems to be the publication of individual and organizational application data.

I'm not the only one wondering about the pedophile.
Did the IRS give Romney's tax returns to Harry Reid? | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/16/did-the-irs-give-romneys-tax-returns-to-harry-reid/)

Edit: I wouldn't trust a Prosecutor from Holder's Department. A former Congessman yesterday said that the best investigative tool was the one used for Nixon (So many comparisons to Watergate, hmm... ), a bipartisan Special Select Committee

No it isn't new and both Lerner, the one who 'apologized' and Miller, the guy who was quitting next month anyway, lied about one of their excuses (http://philanthropy.com/article/IRS-Rationale-for-Tea-Party/139277/), a “big application surge between 2010 and 2012″

And speaking of excuses, here's another (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-s-goodman/irs-tea-party_b_3280063.html) from one of the guys on the left still in denial about the gravity of the IRS betrayal. The IRS didn't' do anything wrong, they were "acting in the public interest when it opted to train its auditing power on the Tea Party and affiliated groups" because I mean hey, the Tea Party "has made no effort to hide its contempt for the very institution of taxation" and so you're damn right the IRS SHOULD bully and intimidate their enemy according to this guy.

OK you Huffpo goober, it's called the first amendment. The very same constitutional right you just exercised to rail on the Tea Party instead of the IRS gives the rest of us the right to express contempt for the IRS.

You just can't make this stuff up.

Julian Bond thinks the TP should be audited because they are in his words the Taliban,

Julian Bond thinks the TP should be audited because they are in his words the Taliban,

Right, I watched that video. It's nice to know some left-wingers are all for a tyrannical government intimidating and harassing conservatives. Those darn baggers are an evil threat!

http://michellemalkinblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/teaparty11.jpg

Hello Steve:


First of all, a 501(c)4 is not prohibited from being involved in politics, so you can throw that defense of the IRS out the window.


Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare (http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Other-Non-Profits/Types-of-Organizations-Exempt-under-Section-501%28c%29%284%29)... Which of the words from the IRS website do you NOT believe?

Excon

Hello again,

Yes, there's more...

When you write a tax code that fills 100's of volumes, and then leave it to the IRS to interpret and define what those words mean, there's going to be some differences of opinion... THIS is just latest iteration.

If you want to BLAME somebody, BLAME congress.

To think that Obama would ORDER his underlings at the IRS to investigate his enemy's, is ludicrous. But, I'm USED to your side's ludicrousness.

excon

To think that Obama would ORDER his underlings at the IRS to investigate his enemy's, is ludicrous.

Why is it ludicrous when there are so many examples of Presidents doing it in the past ? But that isn't how I think it went down. I think he loves demonizing conservatives and that sent a signal down the food chain. The only real question is.. how high up the food chain did the corruption go ? Take them under oath one at a time and ask them "did you make the call ...or was it your boss ? "

Edit.. and yes ;the tax code needs simplifying and the IRS power dramatically reduced... except the Dems created legislation that now gives them power over our wallets ,and our health . So when you complain about the power of the IRS.. know from where it came from.

Hello Steve:



Which of the words from the IRS website do you NOT believe?

Excon

The part under that that says " Organizations that engage in substantial lobbying activities sometimes also are classified as social welfare organizations."

The part in the actual regulation (http://www.irs.gov/irm/part7/irm_07-025-004.html#d0e382) that says this:


7.25.4.8 (02-09-1999)
Legislative Activities

As long as the legislation that an organization attempts to influence is germane to its social welfare purposes, the organization is engaged in activities that further social welfare purposes. See for example Rev. Rul. 67–293, 1967–2 C.B. 185 (promotion of legislation on animal rights); Rev. Rul. 76–81, 1976–1 C.B. 156 (advocacy of anti-abortion legislation); Rev. Rul. 68–656, 1968–2 C.B. 216 (legalization of currently illegal activity); and Rev. Rul. 71–530, 1971–2 C.B. 237 (advocacy of changes in the tax law).


Got it?

The Woman responsible for the IRS harassment and civil rights abuse of Conservatives got a $130,000 bomus and got promoted to be in charge of Obamacare...

And people on the left claim Obama doesn't have his hands in this. And that Obamacare won't determine who gets treated and who doesn't by what their political affiliation is.

Hello again, Steve:

The part in the actual regulation that says this:Let me see... Which one carries more sway - the LAW as passed by congress, or the REGULATION as promulgated by the IRS??

Uhhhh, let me make this easy for you... It's the LAW!

Got it?

Excon

Lemme see.... Which one carries more sway - the LAW as passed by congress, or the REGULATION as promulgated by the IRS???

Uhhhh, lemme make this easy for you... It's the LAW!
Since 1959 the IRS has gotten away with the crime of changing the specific and concrete word exclusively to the soft and open-ended primarily. IRS agents were thus allowed to determine if an organization was "primarily" concerned with the promotion of social welfare.

Hello again, Steve:
Lemme see.... Which one carries more sway - the LAW as passed by congress, or the REGULATION as promulgated by the IRS???

Uhhhh, lemme make this easy for you... It's the LAW!

Got it?

excon

You posted IRS talking points. What I posted IS the law. You do know how the law works don't you? It's just like Zerocare, Congress passed that 1000 page nonsense and the regulators turned it into a 7 foot tall stack of code. That's how it works.

I repeat, the LAW states "As long as the legislation that an organization attempts to influence is germane to its social welfare purposes, the organization is engaged in activities that further social welfare purposes. See for example Rev. Rul. 67–293, 1967–2 C.B. 185 (promotion of legislation on animal rights); Rev. Rul. 76–81, 1976–1 C.B. 156 (advocacy of anti-abortion legislation); Rev. Rul. 68–656, 1968–2 C.B. 216 (legalization of currently illegal activity); and Rev. Rul. 71–530, 1971–2 C.B. 237 (advocacy of changes in the tax law). "

This is getting uglier all the time. Lies, lies and more lies.

First, the IRS lied about the existence of documents (http://freebeacon.com/cover-up/) in regard to targeting conservative groups in response to a FOIA request.

Second, they staged the revelation (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/irs-commissioner-admits-we-planned-when-reveal-scandal_724736.html) - the question that led to it was a plant.


Rep Nunes asked, "Was her question to Ms. Lerner about targeting certain groups planned in advance?"

Miller replied, "I believe we talked about that, yes."


Third, after abusing their power to target conservative groups, the IRS deliberately withheld this information until after the election (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html#).


The IRS commissioner "has known for at least a year that this was going on," said Myers, "and that this had happened. And did he share any of that information with the White House? But even more importantly, Congress is going to ask him, why did you mislead us for an entire year? Members of Congress were saying conservatives are being targeted. What's going on here? The IRS denied it. Then when -- after these officials are briefed by the IG that this is going on, they don't disclose it. In fact, the commissioner sent a letter to Congress in September on this subject and did not reveal this. Imagine if we -- if you can -- what would have happened if this fact came out in September 2012, in the middle of a presidential election? The terrain would have looked very different."

Perhaps, perhaps not, but does this not trouble you lefties yet? Don't expect me to entertain your notions that government is the solution, it's the problem, and expanding it is only going to make things worse. Imagine if this were a Republican administration... I suspect you'd be hollering until you're blue in the face.

This discussion of the interpretation of the wording of the law is largely irrelevant . The fact is that the IRS took the Tea Party out of play for the 2012 election to avoid a repeat of 2010 .Tea Party applications averaged 27 months for approval, while those from liberal groups averaged nine. The Barack H. Obama Foundation status was approved in a one-month timeframe.

There is no other explanation . The inspector general's report shows Louis Lerner knew about the targeting problem in June 2011, but wouldn't admit to it in correspondence with Congress over the next two years. There were at least 4 documented lies she told to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in that time. Douglas Shulman knew about the targeting in May 2012, but told Congress in August 2012 he didn't.Steve Miller knew about the targeting in May 2012, but refused to admit it to Congress during testimony . On August 4 ,2011 the executives of the IRS met; including the IRS chief counsel to discuss the problem . So we know that before the election . All the bosses of the IRS were aware that their agency was specifically denying tax-exempt status because of political considerations.

AND ,it's most likely that the Treasury Dept was aware of it . Treasury's inspector general, J. Russell George, told senior Treasury officials in June 2012 that he was auditing the IRS political organization screening.Deputy secretary Neal Wolin, knew of the IRS scandal before the presidential election.So what are the odds that the White House did no know about the situation by the summer of 2012 ? WE may be looking at criminal conspiracy to cover up improper or illegal practices inside the IRS .

We also know that this was not the actions of a local Cincinnati office .The same activity occurred in offices in Washington, D.C. two towns in California, and even Austin, Texas. So it is not likely that this was some low level staffer's interpretation of the law. What we have instead is a violation of the equal application of the law... and what was the determining factor ? The political position of the organizations applying .
This is a situation that is crying for an independent counselor and committee to investigate. But so far the Obots position is that the highly politicized Eric Holder Justice Dept can investigate this... and we are assured of integrity of process. Yeah right !

Sour grapes?

Really ? How many postings were there about voter suppression on this board ? The only pertinent question here is... was there any illegal activity by this super empowered government agency?. and was there a systematic illegal attempt to suppress the conservative vote by the IRS ,the Treasury Dept ,and ultimately the White House or the Obama re-elect organization ?
The broader question of course is why would a free people allow a government agency to acquire so much power and control over their lives ?

Some one was over zealous in investigating the obvious, but the question must be asked why would someone try to register a charity with a provocative political name, seems like laying a trap to me, but then I have surpicious nature when it comes to things political.

You talk of voter suppression but surely that counters the millions of dead who vote. I truly don't understand how it is that such things happen but then I don't live in a place where centralisation is abhored

Hello again, tom:


this discussion of the interpretation of the wording of the law is largely irrelevant .Really, now... I think they're at the heart of it..

IF the Tea Party was taken out of the 2012 election, it was the CONGRESS who did it with their stinkin tax laws.. Even IF I accept Steve's argument over the words primarily and exclusively, that IS the problem... The rule/law says that it's LEGAL for you to spend 49% of your money on politics, and 51% on social welfare, but ILLEGAL is you spend a penny the wrong way.. Now, let's say you're an IRS employee trying to figure out which penny went where.. Frankly, it's a job that can't ever be done right... If he misses by a penny one way, he's targeting somebody... If he misses it the other way, he's abusing the taxpayers money...

If you wanted to SIMPLIFY the IRS burden on us, it stands to reason that we need to SIMPLIFY the tax code... In THIS case, that's SIMPLE... We can enforce the law that's ALREADY in place and in the process make the IRS LESS of a political arbiter and MORE of an accountant... Any dumbcoff can tell where somebody EXCLUSIVELY spends their money, but it ain't so easy to figure out where they PRIMARILY spend it...

I'm not quite sure WHY you think think this complication in the tax code is GOOD. That doesn't seem very right wing of you.. Could it be that if it ruled your way, the donors of these organizations can be kept secret... Nahhh... Republicans aren't like that.. You LIKE transparency... Don't you?

If you get your way, I'll ask questions of you, like Ted Cruz asked of Chuck Hagel... IF we DON'T know where YOUR money is coming from, we don't know if it came from North Korea, or Al Quaida. We don't know if it came from Al Gore, or Saddam Hussein... We just don't know...

Excon

The wording has not changed . What changed is the uneven application of the law for political reason .So while I'm all for simplifying and clarifying ,the real issue is if one standard applied to lib organizations and another more stringent standard for the TP ,then their rights were violated. Further ,if there was an intentional conspiracy to apply that for political reasons ,then it was criminal conduct.

Hello again, tom:


What changed is the uneven application of the law for political reason . Further, if there was an intentional conspiracy to apply that for political reasons ,then it was criminal conduct.Those ARE the allegations, that, if proven true, will be the end of Obama..

There's NO change in your sides attempt to call EVERYTHING under the sun a scandal, though... By doing so, if a REAL scandal came along, you wouldn't recognize it..

Let me see.. We had Fast and Furiousgate. We had golfgate and vacationgate. We had Michelle flew in another airplanegate, We had mustardgate. Don't forget about FEMAgate, and nobulletgate. Now we have Benghazigate, IRSgate and throw in APgate for good measure...

But, THIS, is like all the rest... You ain't got NOTHING, but right wing flapping gums... Investigate to your hearts content.. Let me know when you find the smoking gun..

Bwa, ha ha ha.

Excon

More deflections.. what I wrote in #15 are the facts as of this morning .Maybe you ought to take a glance at the IG report. That is just the opening of this . What we have already is at number of IRS officials caught lying in testimony and generally stonewalling .
This one is a no brainer . The Emperor tried to contain it by 'accepting the resignation' of some guy who had already quit. More heads will roll before it's over . The real question is how high up the food chain will it go ?

The real question is how high up the food chain will it go ?

Even the least effective Speaker of the House since Joseph Byrns wants to know who's going to jail.

Speaker Bonehead should shut up and push to get an independent prosecutor and work on getting a select committee to hold hearings . All he's going to accomplish with his rhetoric is to get the lower level ops at IRS to lawyer and clam up.

Here is a blast from the past... from the Dem 2004 Keynote Address by Senator Barack Obama :
That we can participate in the political process without fear of retribution

here is a blast from the past ....from the Dem 2004 Keynote Address by Senator Barack Obama :
That we can participate in the political process without fear of retribution

Tom that's a bridge too far, what you have here is a group of people wanting tax exempt status and the IRS investigating, they weren't targeted as a retribution. In other words they put the name of their organisation forward. What is wrong is they were catapulted to the head of the list because of the wording of that name, they were profiled.

Tom that's a bridge too far, what you have here is a group of people wanting tax exempt status and the IRS investigating, they weren't targetted as a retribution. In other words they put the name of their organisation forward. What is wrong is they were catapulted to the head of the list because of the wording of that name, they were profiled.

Clete, the furor is that, based on the organizations name, only some groups went to the head of the line, while others were delayed. Even that's not so bad, it's bureaucracy at it's norm. The criminality is that numerous officials lied under oath, stating that this wasn't happening. On top of the cover-up over Benghazi and stabbing the administration's staunchest supporter, the Associated Press, in the back, it begins to look like the Nixon White House on steroids.

Clete, the furor is that, based on the organizations name, only some groups went to the head of the line, while others were delayed. Even that's not so bad, it's bureaucracy at it's norm. The criminality is that numerous officials lied under oath, stating that this wasn't happening. On top of the cover-up over Benghazi and stabbing the administration's staunchest supporter, the Associated Press, in the back, it begins to look like the Nixon White House on steroids.

Hey I get it, I really do, malfeasance, officials exceeding their authority and doing their own thing and misusing the power of the state. I understand you have a number of issues at the moment that all fall under the heading of veracity, the willingness to tell the truth. There have been bad decisions and the buck always stops at the top. Here's the rub. BO is in his last term you can't impact him more than he has already been impacted. Evita has gone, maybe to come back, maybe not. I heard a commentator say that these things stay in the american public conscience for maybe twelve months so they have a little way to run but something else will eclipse them

You have a polarised electorate and everything is magnified out of proportion as people try to gain the ascendency but while all this furore goes on the important things don't get done

No it's only allegedly "magnified out of proportion " when it's Dems doing it . But far less than this merited a special prosecutor on a witch hunt trying to take down the entire Bush Adm.

Even ex has to begin seeing the pattern soon:

Lawmakers to investigate EPA FOIA scandal | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/18/lawmakers-to-investigate-epa-foia-scandal/)

The superciliousness of this administration is worthy of British cartoonists

Hello again, Catsmine:


Even ex has to begin seeing the pattern soon:

“According to documents obtained by the Committees, EPA readily granted FOIA fee waivers for environmental allies, effectively subsidizing them, while denying fee waivers and making the FOIA process more difficult for states and conservative groups,” wrote Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Darrell Issa and Sens. David Vitter, Chuck Grassley and Jim Inhof in a letter to the EPA.The only pattern I see here is the right wing haters, INCLUDING the scumbag who publishes the Caller, having multiple orgasms...

Excon

And they call the Repubics 'the party of no '
No doubt this was just some over-zealous low level employees in the Boise Idaho EPA office.
Gina McCarthy is the Emperor's pick to replace Lisa Jackson as head of the EPA . There is no way she should be confirmed until this issue is fully investigated. Why is this critical ? Because the Dems increasingly bypass the legislative process ,and use the regulatory agencies like the EPA to create and enforce law.

Also we see that this systemic bias now exists in at least 2 regulatory agencies . Why should we assume that it ends there ? What other bureaucracy streamlines progressive liberal agenda while creating unfair roadblocks to the conservative ? I think we are only looking at the tip of the iceberg .

And they call the Repubics 'the party of no '
No doubt this was just some over-zealous low level employees in the Boise Idaho EPA office.
Gina McCarthy is the Emperor's pick to replace Lisa Jackson as head of the EPA . There is no way she should be confirmed until this issue is fully investigated. Why is this critical ? Because the Dems increasingly bypass the legislative process ,and use the regulatory agencies like the EPA to create and enforce law.

Also we see that this systemic bias now exists in at least 2 regulatory agencies . Why should we assume that it ends there ? What other bureaucracy streamlines progressive liberal agenda while creating unfair roadblocks to the conservative ? I think we are only looking at the tip of the iceberg .

Tom, you haven't lost the propensity to to state the obvious. Of course the Dems are by passing the legislative process in order to to create legislation. You highlight the problem often enough when it comes to your criticism of SCOTUS.
The difference here is that in order to, 'create legislation' you don't need to justify the reason for doing so.

This whole business is a loophole. A Loophole that was created a long time ago. Tom, I understand you are interested in political history. Go back to Madison and the Federalist Papers Number 10. That faction existed then, exists now.

Clete, they were profiled - and then given a rectal exam over and over.

Clete, they were profiled - and then given a rectal exam over and over.

Wasn't this the same type of criticism leveled at the states in terms of probing the 'orifices' of females?

If poor guys of color can be profiled, why can't conservatives?

Go back to Madison and the Federalist Papers Number 10. That faction existed then, exists now.

That faction existed in Babylon. The debate over free men versus slaves is as old as Moses and Pharoh. Draw your own parallels. The most amusing I can come up with is Rand Paul with Red Sea mud on his shoes and Barack Obama in a bogged down Silverado.

That faction existed in Babylon. The debate over free men versus slaves is as old as Moses and Pharoh. Draw your own parallels. The most amusing I can come up with is Rand Paul with Red Sea mud on his shoes and Barack Obama in a bogged down Silverado.


My reference was to Statism versus Federalism.

Going on the history of posts that have been provided, it seems to be an important issue. If you see this as a debate as, "over free men versus slaves", then there is a minority here that seems to view it in these terms. In other words, they view it in terms of Federalism versus Statism.

You call it factions that Madison was warning against... I call it reprisal against citizens exercising their 1st amendment right of "petition the government for redress of grievances " ,their right of association ,and assembly .Madison in # 10 speaks of guarding against factions, with interests contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the whole community.

you call it factions that Madison was warning against ...I call it reprisal against citizens exercising their 1st amendment right of "petition the government for redress of grievances " ,their right of association ,and assembly .

I am happy to call it what ever you like, but in the final analysis it is an inadequacy.

I added on to my last comment to illustrate the difference between the Tea Party groups and the factions Madison was referring to.

I added on to my last comment to illustrate the difference between the Tea Party groups and the factions Madison was referring to.


Tom, the Tea party is heavily funded and controlled by a particular faction.

Budget cuts cause long wait times on IRS help line - Apr. 9, 2013 (http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/09/pf/taxes/irs-budget-cuts/index.html)

IRS Eliminated 5,000 Jobs in Past Year Amid Budget Cuts - Businessweek (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-03-21/irs-has-shed-5-000-employees-in-past-year-amid-budget-cuts)

I echo what Ex has been saying. How do you cut budgets and expect more service? Whipping the slaves harder won't work.

Seems to me the change that's needed is a FULL disclosure law of donors. No more secret money for elections by any one.

Seems to me the change that's needed is a FULL disclosure law of donors. No more secret money for elections by any one.

Yeah like that is going to happen.

Fraud found in Obama's online donations | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/08/fraud-found-in-obamas-online-donations/)


Obama Accepting Untraceable Credit Card Donations (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/29/obama-accepting-untraceab_n_138842.html)


http://www.politisite.com/2012/10/08/obama-campaign-financed-by-foreign-donations-and-credit-card-fraud/

Just because everyone is gaming the system doesn't mean we shouldn't fix it. That's the reason to fix the problem.

We can start with fixing the tax system and eliminating the IRS.

Just because everyone is gaming the system doesn't mean we shouldn't fix it. That's the reason to fix the problem.

This was after the supposed fix from last time. Obama isn't going to fix it. He only wants to gain from the system more then anyone.

Tom, the Tea party is heavily funded and controlled by a particular faction.you presume funding = control. It does not .And ,you presume that they are an single organization . I don't know why you do when the whole case against the IRS is that multiple TP groups and chapters were targeted . The tragedy of this whole thing is that the movement got a whole bunch of people involved for the first time in the political process and this is how their government treated them... like they were outcasts to be views with suspicion .

The tragedy of this whole thing is that the movement got a whole bunch of people involved for the first time in the political process and this is how their government treated them ...like they were outcasts to be views with suspicion .
But they had little or nothing to do with social services or charity. If they did, why they use the blatantly political term "TP" as part of the name?

They should all be investigated. That's why more research needs to be done before we presume they were targeted. I provided proof that left leaning progressive groups were denied tax exempt status. None from the TParty have so far.

Hollering because you were Googled? Typical "victim" mongering from you guys.

you presume funding = control. It does not .And ,you presume that they are an single organization . I don't know why you do when the whole case against the IRS is that multiple TP groups and chapters were targeted . The tragedy of this whole thing is that the movement got a whole bunch of people involved for the first time in the political process and this is how their government treated them ...like they were outcasts to be views with suspicion .

That's what minorities say about the hard push for voter ID law changes so close to the election last year. And the young black guys in NY about stop and frisk, and the latinos in Arizona with papers please.

Guess its not that great being a target, huh?

Hmmmmm!!

Hello again, Steve:


We can start with fixing the tax system and eliminating the IRS.We agree.. But, corporations like GE and the Wall Street banks think it's just hunky dory.. Obama is a corporatist. We ain't going to change nothing.

Excon

My take on this "scandal" --

After "Citizens United" the apps for 501(c)4 come in hot and heavy.

70,000 applications to be reviewed by a staff of 200-300. So they triage.

Who's more likely to NOT be approved for a tax-exempt category that requires social welfare? The far right? Hardly. They've never heard of social welfare, and, in fact, when they do hear about it, they oppose it. The far left? Absolutely. Social welfare literally DEFINES the far left.

When picking 300 or so (of the 70,000) to review, which group is more likely to be selected? The far right, of course. Especially with names like Tea Party and Patriot. Not always, but most of the time. The liberal far left is far LESS likely to be FRAUDULENTLY claiming they are a social welfare organization.

So why is anyone surprised that about a third of the reviewed applications are "Tea Party types? And why is anyone surprised that the left goes through smoothly?

Think about it. A tempest in a teapot.

My take on this "scandal" --

After "Citizens United" the apps for 501(c)4 come in hot and heavy.

70,000 applications to be reviewed by a staff of 200-300. So they triage.

Who's more likely to NOT be approved for a tax-exempt category that requires social welfare? The far right? Hardly. They've never heard of social welfare, and, in fact, when they do hear about it, they oppose it. The far left? Absolutely. Social welfare literally DEFINES the far left.

When picking 300 or so (of the 70,000) to review, which group is more likely to be selected? The far right, of course. Especially with names like Tea Party and Patriot. Not always, but most of the time. The liberal far left is far LESS likely to be FRAUDULENTLY claiming they are a social welfare organization.

So why is anyone surprised that about a third of the reviewed applications are "Tea Party types? And why is anyone surprised that the left goes through smoothly?

Think about it. A tempest in a teapot.

Lets test this in real life situations. Your stating that those on the left tend to give more then those on the right to charity ?

Your theory fails by virtue of the truth.

Republicans Versus Democrats - Why Some People Give More To A Charity (http://www.science20.com/news_articles/republicans_versus_democrats_why_some_people_give_ more_charity-90603)

Lets test this in real life situations. Your stating that those on the left tend to give more then those on the right to charity ?

Your theory fails by virtue of the truth.
Athos did not say Republicans don't give to or give as much to charity. Please reread his post.

For CDAD---

I didn't say anything remotely like you claimed I did.

But they had little or nothing to do with social services or charity. If they did, why they use the blatantly political term "TP" as part of the name?

They did as much as many of the liberal groups that were rubber stamped .This is about equal protection under the law ;not how the law is being interpreted by the IRS . I'm all for tax reform and removal of the special tax status. But don't tell me it's right that a loose broad definition will be applied to one set of applicants and another tighter standard applied to others based on their political beliefs. That isn't America .That's Hugo Chavez Venezuela tactics.

for CDAD---

I didn't say anything remotely like you claimed I did.

What if the IRS had targeted 'liberal sounding' organizations under the Bush administration? Charlie Rangel sees the abuse of power here but apparently you do not .
Using the IRS to target political opponents is authoritarian regardless of the party doing it. The defenders ,including Axelrod are saying the government is too big to control ;and that is exactly the problem .Our supposedly limited government is so limitless in its size, power, and taxing ability that no executive can control it.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-met-kass-0519-20130519,0,1395725.column

To tomder55 --

Your hysteria is showing.

What liberal groups were rubber-stamped? Names, please.

It has nothing to do with "equal protection" - geez, what a stretch - even for you.

The IRS, in this case, applied common sense to fairly review requests for tax exemption. THAT'S THEIR JOB.

Hugo Chavez? Venezuela? Good grief. Get a grip.

Your agenda is so glaringly obvious, it hurts my eyes. Firstly, shame Obama. Secondly, shame the IRS so that a nice, simple flat tax can replace that agency and give more money to the rich, and de-fund social programs.

To tomder55 (2)

If the IRS had gone after liberal organizations under Bush (or Obama) FOR A GOOD REASON, I would support such actions.

In this case, the IRS went after organizations who were possibly NOT IN COMPLIANCE with the law granting tax-exemption.

What liberal groups were rubber-stamped? Names, please.

The Barack H Obama Foundation comes immediately to mind.


If the IRS had gone after liberal organizations under Bush (or Obama) FOR A GOOD REASON, I would support such actions.

In this case, the IRS went after organizations who were possibly NOT IN COMPLIANCE with the law granting tax-exemption.

Nice spin... but no... they targeted them because of their name. Even the Emperor's 'Wormtongue' Dan Pfeiffer said on all the morning talk shows today that the IRS actions were indefensible .

Nice spin ...but no ... they targeted them because of their name.
Somehow a title like "Tea Party Charities" scares me. It's definitely a lighting rod to check further into its mission and political connections.

To tomder55 (3) -- For some reason, I don't have the option of quoting a poster..?

That foundation is a 501(c)3 - not a 501(c)4 - and promotes NO political advocacy. If it was rubber-stamped (no evidence that it was) it should not have been.

Drew Ryun tried to get 'Media Trackers' nonprofit status for over a year .So he changed the name to 'Greenhouse Solutions' .His approval came within 3 weeks.

So yeah it was all in the name . Liberal sounding names got less scrutiny . It was definitely an issue of unequal application of the law. Other than the name there was no difference in his organization.

Liberal sounding names got less scrutiny .
No, non-political titles get less scrutiny, are not lightning rods in the triage system.

You are making this triage system up .
And y'all seem to be under a misconception that 501(c) 4's were the only groups under scrutiny . But that just isn't so .
August 2010
First BOLO listing issued with criteria listed as “…[B]various local organizations in the Tea Party movement…applying for exemption under 501(c)(3) or 501(c) 4 .” was in August 2010 .
See pdf :
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/TIGTA-AppendixVIandAppendixVII.pdf

The timeline continues :


July 2011
Criteria changed to “Organizations involved with political, lobbying, or advocacy for exemption under 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4)” based on the concerns the Director, EO, raised in June 2011.

January 2012
Criteria changed to “Political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding government, educating on the constitution and bill of rights, social economic reform/movement” based on Determinations Unit concerns that the July 2011 criteria was too generic.

May 2012
Criteria changed to “501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), and 501(c)(6) organizations with indicators of significant amounts of political campaign intervention (raising questions as to exempt purpose and/or excess private benefit).”

We have also learned that pro-life groups were also targeted . So let's stop the pretend that this was not politically motivated targeting .

Hello again, tom:

People did wrong. They should be fired. I don't know where the scandal is, though. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what the Benghazi scandal is. And, I don't think the AP thing is a scandal, either. You DON'T like whistle-blowers who put our brave servicemen in danger, do you?

excon

And... let's say that the only scrutiny applied to 501(c)4 groups . You would think with all this scrutiny that at least one of these Tea Party groups would've been denied their application . But you can't come up with one.out of the hundreds of applications All you have is that since their name sounded like organizations that did not fit the criteria ,that they should be subject to greater scrutiny than those benevolent liberal groups.

Hello again, tom:

People did wrong. They should be fired. I dunno where the scandal is, though. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what the Benghazi scandal is. And, I don't think the AP thing is a scandal, either. You DON'T like whistle-blowers who put our brave servicemen in danger, do you?

excon

Benghazi will be the lies under testimony. A screwed up foreign policy is not criminal per se unless there is some law I'm not aware of prohibiting the arming of jihadists .
So let me get this straight . Unless there is a clear case of criminal activity ,you don't think policy blunders should be investigated ?
If there is a criminal activity in Benghazi it's because the Obots tried to cover up the facts of the incident ;including under testimony to the various oversight committees... let alone their outright lies to the world ,and the American people.

Hello again, tom:


that they should be subject to greater scrutiny than those benevolent liberal groups.If given the power and the opportunity to DO stuff like that, some people WILL. They should be fired. If we CHANGE the law/regulation that allows them to do it, then we'll STOP it. To PUT IRS employees into the POSITION of making those decisions in the first place, is a mistake CONGRESS made..

Are you in favor of changing the law so this won't ever happen again??

Excon

Of course . You know my position on taxes and the power of the IRS. The size of the government makes this type of corruption in the regulatory and enforcement agencies inevitable .

If the population grows and changes shouldn't government grow and change to service the population? As we age and retire, shouldn't we keep up with the needs of an aging population? As the private sector sends good jobs overseas for cheap labor, shouldn't we be helping displaced workers get on their feet?

If political parties want a loophole, shouldn't we investigate them thoroughly? If you keep cutting the budget, and not hire more people then either services slow down, or the service stops.

Even the TParty can be corrupted, and those law abiding citizens that want guns can be too. If you had 20,000 cases to verify, how long would it take you? Or would you demand more help, or more money?

Be honest.

Been catching up some and I'm floored that anyone can defend or dismiss this. This isn't about SCOTUS, loopholes, names that scare you (which seems awfully paranoid) or any other side issue. This is about a jackbooted government agency violating our trust, our rights in targeting political enemies. Not only that but they avoided the power players that can afford to defend themselves, which would have exposed this conspiracy - they used the full force of the U.S. government to harass and intimidate the little guys for daring to be concerned about the direction the country was headed and covered it up until after the election.

This is as clearcut an example of betrayal by our government as it gets, it cannot be excused and shame on anyone that tries.

Been catching up some and I'm floored that anyone can defend or dismiss this. This isn't about SCOTUS, loopholes, names that scare you (which seems awfully paranoid) or any other side issue. This is about a jackbooted government agency violating our trust, our rights in targeting political enemies. Not only that but they avoided the power players that can afford to defend themselves, which would have exposed this conspiracy - they used the full force of the U.S. government to harass and intimidate the little guys for daring to be concerned about the direction the country was headed and covered it up until after the election.

This is as clearcut an example of betrayal by our government as it gets, it cannot be excused and shame on anyone that tries.

And the IRS has been doing it since 1959.

Was there a point to that comment?

Was there a point to that comment?
Yes.

Been catching up some and I'm floored that anyone can defend or dismiss this. This isn't about SCOTUS, loopholes, names that scare you (which seems awfully paranoid) or any other side issue. This is about a jackbooted government agency violating our trust, our rights in targeting political enemies. Not only that but they avoided the power players that can afford to defend themselves, which would have exposed this conspiracy - they used the full force of the U.S. government to harass and intimidate the little guys for daring to be concerned about the direction the country was headed and covered it up until after the election.

This is as clearcut an example of betrayal by our government as it gets, it cannot be excused and shame on anyone that tries.


It is a clear cut example, but that's the whole idea of neo-corporatism.

Federalism is the best way to consolidate a power sharing arrangement. At the moment we have neo-nationalism teamed up with neo-corporatism. The only difference down the track will be that neo-conservatism will team up with neo-corporatism.Nothing will change except a shift in the power sharing arrangement.

I would disagree with Tom. Money does buy power and influence in the political process. The little guys were shut out of the political process as soon as big money backed their grassroots cause.

Yes we disagree on that issue. There are over a thousand independent Tea Party Groups in the country ,most of them unaffiliated with one of the self proclaimed national groups.

Yes.

And what point would that be?

And what point would that be?
That, over the years, BOTH political parties have been subjected to the misinterpretation of the tax law. The original wording was fair and clear.

It is a clear cut example, but that's the whole idea of neo-corporatism.

Federalism is the best way to consolidate a power sharing arrangement. At the moment we have neo-nationalism teamed up with neo-corporatism. The only difference down the track will be that neo-conservatism will team up with neo-corporatism.Nothing will change except a shift in the power sharing arrangement.

I would disagree with Tom. Money does buy power and influence in the political process. The little guys were shut out of the political process as soon as big money backed their grassroots cause.

And some still amazingly call themselves "grassroots" organizations, i.e. MoveOn & Organizing For America - while these true grassroots movements get the jackboot from the feds.

How do you tell the true grassroots Tparty from the ones subverted by corporate donors for elections? You know how Army did? Are you saying all those groups with TPARTY as a name are unaffiliated?

They all look alike to me.

That, over the years, BOTH political parties have been subjected to the misinterpretation of the tax law. The original wording was fair and clear.

This was no misinterpretation of tax law.



How do you tell the true grassroots Tparty from the ones subverted by corporate donors for elections? You know how Army did? Are you saying all those groups with TPARTY as a name are unaffiliated?

They all look alike to me.

The fact is the IRS ONLY targeted small groups as I said before (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3466955-post73.html). They don't all look alike to the jackbooted thugs at Gestapo central.

Getting back on track again, I repeat, "this is about a jackbooted government agency violating our trust, our rights in targeting political enemies. Not only that but they avoided the power players that can afford to defend themselves, which would have exposed this conspiracy - they used the full force of the U.S. government to harass and intimidate the little guys for daring to be concerned about the direction the country was headed and covered it up until after the election.

This is as clearcut an example of betrayal by our government as it gets, it cannot be excused and shame on anyone that tries."

This was no misinterpretation of tax law.
I use "misintepretation" very loosely. "Exclusively" was changed to "primarily." Why hasn't anyone complained before now?

Why complain WG when the goal is hide the money?

I use "misintepretation" very loosely. "Exclusively" was changed to "primarily." Why hasn't anyone complained before now?

I have no idea what you're talking about and I'm not interested in diversions, there is nothing unclear about this other than how high did it go?


I repeat, "this is about a jackbooted government agency violating our trust, our rights in targeting political enemies. Not only that but they avoided the power players that can afford to defend themselves, which would have exposed this conspiracy - they used the full force of the U.S. government to harass and intimidate the little guys for daring to be concerned about the direction the country was headed and covered it up until after the election.

This is as clearcut an example of betrayal by our government as it gets, it cannot be excused and shame on anyone that tries."

I have no idea what you're talking about and I'm not interested in diversions, there is nothing unclear about this other than how high did it go?
So you don't care that the wording of the tax code has been slyly changed to allow a broader interpretation of what a tax-deductible charity is?

So you don't care that the wording of the tax code has been slyly changed to allow a broader interpretation of what a tax-deductible charity is?

Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. If you want to discuss your wording thingy feel free to start a new thread.


"this is about a jackbooted government agency violating our trust, our rights in targeting political enemies. Not only that but they avoided the power players that can afford to defend themselves, which would have exposed this conspiracy - they used the full force of the U.S. government to harass and intimidate the little guys for daring to be concerned about the direction the country was headed and covered it up until after the election.

This is as clearcut an example of betrayal by our government as it gets, it cannot be excused and shame on anyone that tries."

The Washington Examiner is reporting that the lower level IRS employees in Cincinnati are now leaking in self-defense. “Everything comes from the top.” No kidding . The Obots won't get away with this blame the low level op this time.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/anonymous-cincinnati-irs-official-everything-comes-from-the-top./article/2530001

Actually, Tea Party Groups Gave the IRS Lots of Good Reasons to Be Interested | Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/irs-tea-party-tax-problems)


In 2010, an ethics complaint and lawsuit against King Street Patriots alleged illegal political activity, and last year a Texas judge agreed, ruling that the organization was not a nonprofit but in fact was operating like a political action committee and illegally helping the GOP.


More than one aspect of TheTeaParty.net/STI's forays into politics might have triggered a closer look from the IRS. Its founders initially set up the group as both a 501(c)(4) and a political action committee that it registered with the FEC—as a single entity. That was a clear violation of the non-profit rules on political activity, as Backer himself acknowledged to me. (The group eventually shut down the PAC.) In 2012, when the group sought to create a "leadership fund" in hopes of collecting unlimited campaign contributions, it ran afoul of federal campaign finance rules; it ended up suing the FEC, arguing that the agency should be prevented from enforcing those laws against it (and it lost).

I could go on but the article speaks for itself and that's obvious the TParty bears a closer scrutiny when it comes to tax dollars. The big groups have lawyers, the smaller grassroots one do NOT and appear to have a problem navigating the system.

They lose in court too, when they sue. What does that tell you?

Actually, Tea Party Groups Gave the IRS Lots of Good Reasons to Be Interested | Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/irs-tea-party-tax-problems)





I could go on but the article speaks for itself and that's obvious the TParty bears a closer scrutiny when it comes to tax dollars. The big groups have lawyers, the smaller grassroots one do NOT and appear to have a problem navigating the system.

They lose in court too, when they sue. What does that tell you?

Huh? So you're against equal protection and for jackbooted thuggery by our government? You're defending the big money groups and dismissing the little guy's concerns? What?

Why does the IRS' ADMITTED betrayal of the American people not pi$$ you off? There are no excuses, no justifications for this Tal. None.

I can't believe this ! Even the Emperor claims to be outraged at this .

Coincidence ? According to White House visitor logs ;the head of the IRS employees Union ;the National Treasury Employees Union(NTEU)Colleen Kelley, visited the White House at 12:30pm on March 31,2010.
Now according to the IG report of the IRS one day later ,on April 1 - 2 ,2010 'The new Acting Manager, Technical Unit, suggested the need for a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases. The Determinations Unit Program Manager Agreed'.

The NTEU PAC endorsed President Obama in both 2008 and 2012, and gave hundreds of thousands of dollars in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles to anti-Tea Party candidates.

coincidence ? According to White House visitor logs ;the head of the IRS employees Union ;the National Treasury Employees Union(NTEU)Colleen Kelley, visited the White House at 12:30pm on March 31,2010.
Now according to the IG report of the IRS one day later ,on April 1 - 2 ,2010 'The new Acting Manager, Technical Unit, suggested the need for a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases. The Determinations Unit Program Manager Agreed'.

The NTEU PAC endorsed President Obama in both 2008 and 2012, and gave hundreds of thousands of dollars in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles to anti-Tea Party candidates.

Coincidence? Uh, no.

They say the official reason for the visit was unrelated . But that doesn't mean unofficial marching orders weren't exchanged.

The marching orders have a mysterious way of metastasizing (http://www.therightscoop.com/unbelievable-harassament-of-true-the-vote-after-applying-for-tax-exempt-status/) to other agencies.


Over the weekend, True the Vote founder Catherine Engelbrecht discussed with Huckabee how, after applying for tax-exempt status in 2010, she’s had 17 different interactions with several different federal agencies, including the FBI, IRS, OSHA, Commission on Environmental Quality, and the ATF.

That would be the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality her business also (http://www.nationalreview.com/node/348756/print) received a visit from in 2012 based on an alleged complaint they couldn't provide details for. I doubt that was a coincidence either.

Lois Lerner, the top IRS official who is at the center of the controversy for the targeting of tea party and other conservative groups, will refuse to answer questions at a congressional hearing Wednesday and invoke her Fifth Amendment rights, ABC News has learned.

She is set to appear before the House Oversight Committee. Congressional aides said today that they received a notice from Lerner’s lawyers that she would not answer their questions because it is now part of a criminal investigation.

IRS Official Lois Lerner to Take the Fifth - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/irs-official-lois-lerner-to-take-the-fifth/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

That was inevitable given Speaker Bonehead asking who would go to jail over the scandal . But the truth will come out because the ops in the Cincinnati office are not going to take the fall for following instructions.

“She has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation, but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course,” according to a letter that her lawyer, William Taylor, sent to Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the committee, which was first reported by the Los Angeles Times.

Taylor asked that Lerner be granted a reprieve from appearing before the committee, saying it has “no purpose other than to embarrass or burden her.” A congressional aide told ABC News that she is still expected to appear Wednesday.

She wants to avoid embarrassment or burden? Wonder if she was ever concerned about the embarrassment or burden to the citizens that were being targeted?? Probably not . They were just these crazy people in funny tri-cornered hats.

IRS Official Lois Lerner to Take the Fifth - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/irs-official-lois-lerner-to-take-the-fifth/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

that was inevitable given Speaker Bonehead asking who would go to jail over the scandal . But the truth will come out because the ops in the Cincinnati office are not going to take the fall for following instructions.

She wants to avoid embarrassment or burden? Wonder if she was ever concerned about the embarrassment or burden to the citizens that were being targeted ??? Probably not . They were just these crazy people in funny tri-cornered hats.

You just can't make this stuff up - the woman that gave concerned citizens an IRS rectal exam can't be burdened. By the way, did you know she has a history of doing the same thing at the FEC (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/irss-lerner-had-history-harassment-inappropriate-religious-inquiries-fec_725004.html?page=2)? Page 2 is quite interesting.

You just can't make this stuff up - the woman that gave concerned citizens an IRS rectal exam can't be burdened. By the way, did you know she has a history of doing the same thing at the FEC (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/irss-lerner-had-history-harassment-inappropriate-religious-inquiries-fec_725004.html?page=2)? Page 2 is quite interesting.

So you are saying she is someone's attack dog

The best response to Lerner taking the fifth on Twitter:

@Popehat IRS Official to Reaffirm Importance of Constitutional Rights

Hello again,

Lest anyone think otherwise, I'm as pissed off at the IRS as anybody. The difference between me and my right wing friends is, I'm willing to let the evidence do its work.

All pleading the 5th will do is CONFIRM to the general public that criminal activity went on even if it didn't.. Or, maybe it did.

excon

The best response to Lerner taking the fifth on Twitter:

@Popehat IRS Official to Reaffirm Importance of Constitutional Rights

Remember .she's not good at math. She counts the 5th ;but forgets the 1st .

Anyone who testifies before congress about anything in this partisan atmosphere and has already been threatened with jail should plead the fifth, and have a lawyer on board. Guilty or not.

The simple fact that these things happened before the election, and the administration denies ANY knowledge, should turn on every warning light in the country as to the agenda of this administration. We have received nothing but lies since day one of this group of traitors, Osama Bin Laden dead and buried at sea? Bull stuff. I do not believe for one minute that this went down like they say. It was to boost Obama's ratings. The unemployment rate dropping like a lead weight from month to month when there still are no jobs, another lie. Benghazi, a lie, Fast And Furious, a lie. Nothing but lies yet the Democrats stand behind the carpetbagger day in and day out. It is no wonder that the United States has become the laughing stock of the World.

Hello again,

Lest anyone think otherwise, I'm as pissed off at the IRS as anybody. The difference between me and my right wing friends is, I'm willing to let the evidence do its work.

All pleading the 5th will do is CONFIRM to the general public that criminal activity went on even if it didn't.. Or, maybe it did.

Excon

That's funny, it was just yesterday that I said this:


Dude, you never take advantage of opportunities? Yeah, you do, the difference between us is I don't make sh*t up, I follow the facts where they take me

Glad to see you're on board with that. The facts say that there was a directive from management, not just some rogue underlings taking it on themselves to stir up trouble. The facts say these low-level employees were thrown under the bus and they aren't going down quietly. In fact, one of them spoke to National Review on things already known from the IG's report which seem to have been overlooked by the media:


From the outset (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/348983/oversight-washington-all-along-eliana-johnson), Internal Revenue Service lawyers based in Washington, D.C. provided important guidance on the handling of tea-party groups’ applications for tax-exempt status, according to both IRS sources and the inspector general’s report released in mid May.

Officials in the Technical Unit of the IRS’s Rulings and Agreements office played an integral role in determining how the targeted applications were treated, provided general guidelines to Cincinnati case workers, briefed other agency employees on the status of the special cases, and reviewed all those intrusive requests demanding “more information” from tea-party groups. At times, the Technical Unit lawyers seemed to exercise tight control over these applications, creating both a backlog in application processing and frustration among Cincinnati agents waiting for direction.

An IRS employee who asked not to be identified tells National Review Online that all members of the agency’s Technical Unit are based in Washington, D.C. A current list of Technical Unit managers provided by another IRS employee shows that all such managers are based at the agency’s headquarters on Constitution Avenue in the District of Columbia, and the IRS confirmed, in a testy exchange with National Review Online, that the Technical Unit is “based in Washington.”

According to the IRS source, who is based in Cincinnati, complex cases are routinely elevated to the Technical Unit for guidance. Many of the questions that agents sent to groups most likely came “from Tax Law Specialists — lawyers — in D.C.,” the Cincinnati employee explains. “With tea-party cases, questions from the Tax Law Specialists were way too aggressive,” he says. The Washington Post described these lawyers as parsing “the murkier, more complex applications” — including those of tea-party groups.

This account comports with the one laid out in the inspector general’s report, although this aspect of the report has been neglected in much of the press coverage. On May 17, 2010, according to the IG report, Determinations Unit specialists in Cincinnati handling tea-party applications were instructed to “send additional information request letters to the Technical Unit for review prior to issuance.” Ten days later, the Technical Unit “began reviewing additional information request letters prepared by the Determinations Unit.”

The IG report indicates this became a source of frustration, and specialists in Cincinnati pressed for a streamlined approach. “Why does the Technical Unit need to review every additional information request letter when a template letter could be approved and used on all the cases?” they asked via e-mail. The Washington unit rejected this approach and, in February 2011, was developing individualized letters itself. According to the IG report, an update from the Technical Unit acting manager to the Determinations Unit manager indicated, “Letters were being developed and would be reviewed shortly.”

What we don't know yet is exactly how high up this goes, but it goes to Washington and at the very least some Democrats have some culpability in this in the very public suggestions that these groups need scrutiny.

So, what exactly about this pi$$es you off, ex? Just curious.

Anyone who testifies before congress about anything in this partisan atmosphere and has already been threatened with jail should plead the fifth, and have a lawyer on board. Guilty or not.

So this is only a Republican thing, eh, the IRS' behavior doesn't bother Democrats?

Hello again, Steve:


So, what exactly about this pi$$es you off, ex? That they targeted people for their politics, IF they did. By this lady taking the 5th, it looks more and more like they did.

After all these years, you should know that I support the rights of people I vehemently disagree with, simply because I fear if I don't, I'll be next. I don't like the Tea Party. But, if they're eligible for a tax deduction, then they're ELIGIBLE for a tax deduction...

This takes NOTHING away from my argument that the IRS should NEVER be put in the position of having to make these decisions in the first place. That's the fault of congress.

Excon

So this is only a Republican thing, eh, the IRS' behavior doesn't bother Democrats?

I can wait for what the investigation uncovers unlike repubs who have drawn their own conclusions and only want facts that lead to that conclusions.

Hello again, Steve:

That they targeted people for their politics, IF they did. By this lady taking the 5th, it looks more and more like they did.

After all these years, you should know that I support the rights of people I vehemently disagree with, simply because I fear if I don't, I'll be next. I don't like the Tea Party. But, if they're eligible for a tax deduction, then they're ELIGIBLE for a tax deduction...

This takes NOTHING away from my argument that the IRS should NEVER be put in the position of having to make these decisions in the first place. That's the fault of congress.

excon

I swear I posted this before and it's gone...

On the first part, fair enough. On the second part, that's another discussion.

I have a question though, does it bother you that the government machine was used to influence the election, or does just voter ID get under your skin?

I can wait for what the investigation uncovers unlike repubs who have drawn their own conclusions and only want facts that lead to that conclusions.

Funny how so many lefties have a sudden fondness for waiting. Did you guys get something for that restless leg syndrome?

You will be happy to hear that Max Baucus and his Finance Committee are about to hold hearings on the IRS scandal. Evidently the outrage is bipartisan... except on this board. Even Harry Reid is on board.

So, the lady that wanted present and future member names and speech content, and the content of prayers of conservative groups who couldn't be burdened to answer a few questions did plead the fifth. Right after proclaiming her innocence and giving her side of the story. Well that was a ballsy move.


House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa said embattled IRS official Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment rights and will be hauled back to appear before his panel again.

The California Republican said Lerner's Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination was voided when she gave an opening statement this morning denying any wrongdoing and professing pride in her government service.

Read more: IRS scandal hearing: Darrell Issa says Lois Lerner lost her rights - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/darrell-issa-irs-lois-lerner-91755.html#ixzz2U3i4TNYf)

You got to give these IRS guys like Lerner and Miller credit, they're perfect for the job of being government a$$holes.

Issa let her off easy . She should've been grilled for hours and answer every unanswered question of her role in this 10 different ways with "I plead the 5th" . Hopefully he will correct that mistake when he hauls her back to testify... this time under oath. Maybe she and Steven Miller can plant some questions with the Dem members of the committee that she can actually answer .

Legal experts are questioning whether Lerner's Fifth Amendment protections dissolved once she began talking on Wednesday, as Issa argues.

“I don't think a brief introductory preface to her formal invocation of the privilege is a waiver,” said Stan Brand, who was the general counsel for the House of Representatives from 1976 to 1983 and works on ethics issues.

He said the bigger problem for Lerner may be that she has made herself available to Congress in the past.

“The more serious question is whether any of her earlier congressional appearances before other committees constituted a waiver,” Brand said. “That in turn may depend on whether any of those appearances were 'compelled' — that is, pursuant to a subpoena.”

He said the committee may ultimately pursue a contempt charge if Lerner continues to refuse to talk.

“Bottom line,” Brand said, “I think we will hear no more from Ms. Lerner” unless she is provided immunity.

Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the Oversight committee, said he didn't think Lerner waived her fifth amendment protections.

“I don't think her counsel would have allowed her to give a statement knowing that the very purpose of him being here — for her to assert her fifth amendment rights — would be damaged if she made a statement,” he told reporters.

Lerner's decision to speak at all immediately triggered a dust-up among lawmakers who were confused about whether she gave up her Fifth Amendment protections when she made the opening statement.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), a former federal prosecutor, said Lerner lost her rights the minute she started proclaiming her innocence, and that lawmakers therefore were entitled to question her. Cummings — himself a former lawyer — said congressional hearing rules were not like those of a courtroom.

During the incident, Issa did not flat-out say whether Lerner had indeed waived her rights but instead tried to coax her into staying by offering to narrow the scope of questions.

By the afternoon, Issa was taking a harder stand.

“The precedents are clear that this is not something you can turn on and turn off,” he told POLITICO. “She made testimony after she was sworn in, asserted her innocence in a number of areas, even answered questions asserting that a document was true … So she gave partial testimony and then tried to revoke that.”

He said he was not expecting that.

“I understand from her counsel that there was a plan to assert her Fifth Amendment rights,” he continued. “She made a statement, so counsel let her effectively under the precedent, waive — so we now have someone who no longer has that ability.”
Darrell Issa: Lois Lerner lost her rights - POLITICO.com Print View (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=FA2C83E1-B64F-48FC-85A0-808CC71CB24F)

Hello again, Steve:


Darrell Issa: Lois Lerner lost her rights - POLITICO.com Print ViewUhhh, no she didn't.. You don't LOSE them. That's why they're called RIGHTS. At ANY time during questioning she can invoke the 5th..

You'd THINK that congressmen would KNOW the law wouldn't you?

Excon

You'd THINK that congressmen would KNOW the law wouldn't you?

excon

Now why would you think that? After all you have to pass it to know what's in it? And even then they don't know what's in it

Again, I posted this once and it's gone.

Waive and lose are different words, Issa said waive, Politico said lose.

Hello again, Steve:

You don't LOSE your rights - EVER. That's why we call 'em RIGHTS! A congressional hearing is different than court.. In court, you don't have to take the stand... In a hearing, if you've been subpoenaed, you MUST appear, but you may invoke your 5th Amendment rights ANYTIME during questioning.. What you CAN'T do, is selectively answer questions. You can make ANY statement you like..

excon

Rights are rights stuffing about is a political exercise

Why are you hollering at me? I just posted the news and called it a ballsy move.

Hello again,

Seems like every Republican who's been audited now thinks they've been targeted... I guess if you think Obama was running his enemy's list, you'd think that..

Frankly, I can't imagine even the most hard core righty believing that... Or, maybe I can.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

You don't LOSE your rights - EVER. That's why we call 'em RIGHTS! A congressional hearing is different than court.. In court, you don't have to take the stand... In a hearing, if you've been subpoenaed, you MUST appear, but you may invoke your 5th Amendment rights ANYTIME during questioning.. What you CAN'T do, is selectively answer questions. You can make ANY statement you like..

excon

No she doesn't lose rights .But she did waive them when she made an opening statement . However ; I would've made her invoke the 5th over and over again in an 8 hr questioning session.

Hello again,

Seems like every Republican who's been audited now thinks they've been targeted... I guess if you think Obama was running his enemy's list, you'd think that..

Frankly, I can't imagine even the most hard core righty believing that... Or, maybe I can.

excon

I believe the issue is not auditing (yet), it's politically motivated targeting of conservative groups for unreasonable, unconstitutional scrutiny by the IRS. It's about equal protection, it's about free speech, it's about using the government machine to not only influence the election but harass and intimidate conservatives - possibly by multiple government agencies - for nothing more than being concerned citizens exercising their rights.

I have no doubt there were probably targeted audits as well, it's difficult to imagine there weren't some. Even the most hardcore lefty probably realizes that.

It goes way beyond "audit" .


Any doubt the IRS scrutinized groups because of their political leanings was cleared up Tuesday. At a Senate hearing about IRS abuses, Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., asked ousted IRS Commissioner Steven Miller whether his agency's targeting of tea party groups was partisan.

"It absolutely was," Miller said.
The IRS also targeted religious groups that took issue with Obamacare. The agency's actions have already had a chilling effect on free speech, based on one conversation The Gazette had with author and professor Anne Hendershott, a renowned scholar and sociology professor at The King's College in New York.

Hendershott began writing articles critical of Obamacare for the Catholic Advocate in March of 2010. She documented how Obamacare will fund abortions. In May of that year, the IRS wanted to talk. Agent Michael Iannotti, who works in the New Haven, Conn., IRS office gave her a time, date and place to show up for an audit. Even though Hendershott files jointly with her husband, Iannotti wanted to see her alone. He told her not to bring the couple's CPA.

Hendershott said the IRS wanted to know about her articles, most of which she had written for free. She said the IRS continued calling and demanding information about articles for the next six month. If they wanted to silence Hendershott, their tactics worked. She quit writing for the Advocate and refrained from criticizing President Barack Obama.

"I have a husband and children who have jobs and share my last name. When you think the IRS has the power to destroy your family, your livelihood and to take away your property, you don't want to make them mad. You do what you think will make them go away. That's what I did," said Hendershott, as quoted Tuesday in the National Catholic Register.

Sue Martinek heads Coalition for Life of Iowa, a tiny anti-abortion group with an annual budget of $1,000. She petitioned the IRS for 501(c)(3) status in 2008. After an absurd amount of scrutiny, the IRS demanded all board members sign a statement declaring they would never protest Planned Parenthood abortion clinics.

"This was disturbing, content-based scrutiny," said Sallie Wagenmaker, a Chicago-based lawyer who got the IRS to back off. "We have freedom of speech. We have religious freedom, and we have the right to peaceable assembly, and they seemed determined to deprive this organization of all of those protections."

Texas-based Christian Voices for Life had a similar experience in 2011. IRS agent Tyrone Thomas, in El Monte, Calif., demanded piles of paperwork and told McCoy her organization would not qualify for tax-exempt status unless it vowed to educate on both sides of the abortion issue.
"That's not the law," said Wagenmaker. "The law allows a 501(c)(3) to engage in advocacy. You can teach that smoking kills without having to advocate the benefits of smoking."

Chapman University law professor John Eastman, who has worked on 75 cases that went before the Supreme Court, said IRS agents probably committed felony offenses against an organization he heads called National Organization for Marriage. Eastman claims he will prove the IRS sent his organization's private tax documents - containing information about donors - to an another nonprofit that advocates for same-sex marriage. That group, The Human Rights Campaign, published Eastman's documents on the Internet. The Human Rights Campaign was headed by Joseph Salmonese, who had just been named co-chair of Obama's re-election campaign.

More information emerges daily that indicates the IRS tried to punish and silence Americans for political reasons. University of Denver adjunct law professor David Kopel, research director of the Independence Institute, said at least one motive could explain abuses against anti-abortion groups.

"Obamacare gives to the IRS the most significant addition to its power since creation of the income tax," Kopel said. "So we can set aside ideology and see that from the IRS perspective these pro-life groups are a threat because they want to stop Obamacare."

These abuses jeopardize freedom of religion and speech, which government was created to defend. Moreover, this scandal may constitute the most egregious abuse of federal authority since McCarthyism or Watergate - and it may prove even worse. If we allow government this power, our country won't remain free.

IRS targeted anti-abortion groups too (http://gazette.com/irs-targeted-anti-abortion-groups-too/article/1501085)

Now that you mention it there does seem to be a little bit of targeted auditing by the IRS:


IRS Morality: Defend Planned Parenthood, Deluge Adoptive Families with Audits (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/349077/irs-morality-defend-planned-parenthood-deluge-adoptive-families-audits-david-french)

Earlier this week, in a feeble attempt at humor on Facebook, I posted: “If you haven’t been audited by the IRS during the Obama administration, can you even call yourself a conservative?” Given the scale of the abuses, I should probably just shorten it and say, “Only RINOs don’t get audited.” My wife and I got audited in 2011, with the IRS examining every inch of our adoption the previous year. The process was painful, but we got through it, and our refund may have been adjusted by a few dollars (the amount of the adjustment was so small, I don’t actually remember). In other words, the audit was a gigantic waste of time — for the IRS and for our family. A Facebook commenter, however, pointed me to a report that made me rethink the experience.

As we get word that the IRS has harassed a number of pro-life groups, including at least one alleged demand that a pro-life group not picket Planned Parenthood, check out this statistic: In 2012, the IRS requested additional information from 90 percent of returns claiming the adoption tax credit and went on to actually audit 69 percent. More details from the Taxpayer Advocate Service:


During the 2012 filing season, 90 percent of returns claiming the refundable adoption credit were subject to additional review to determine if an examination was necessary. The most common reasons were income and a lack of documentation.

■ Sixty-nine percent of all adoption credit claims during the 2012 filing season were selected for audit.

■ Of the completed adoption tax credit audits, over 55 percent ended with no change in the tax owed or refund due in fiscal year 2012. The median refund amount involved in these audits is over $15,000 and the median adjusted gross income (AGI) of the taxpayers involved is about 64,000. The average adoption credit correspondence audit currently takes 126 days, causing a lengthy delay for taxpayers waiting for refunds.

While many returns had missing or incomplete information (more on that in a moment), what was the outcome of this massive audit campaign? Not much:

Despite Congress’ express intent to target the credit to low and middle income families, the IRS created income-based rules that were responsible for over one-third of all additional reviews in FY2012.

■ Of the $668.1 million in adoption credit claims in tax year (TY) 2011 as a result of adoption credit audits, the IRS only disallowed $11 million — or one and one-half percent — in adoption credit claims. However, the IRS has also had to pay out $2.1 million in interest in TY 2011 to taxpayers whose refunds were held past the 45-day period allowed by law.

So Congress implemented a tax credit to facilitate adoption – a process that is so extraordinarily expensive that it is out of reach for many middle-class families — and the IRS responded by implementing an audit campaign that delayed much-needed tax refunds to the very families that needed them the most. Oh, and the return on its investment in this harassment? Slightly more than 1 percent.

This audit wave got almost no media coverage, but what was the experience like for individual families? In a word, grueling. Huge document requests with short turnaround times were followed by lengthy IRS delays in processing, all with no understanding for the unique documentation challenges of international adoption. Here’s how one adoptive family described the experience:


It was early June when a letter arrived from IRS explaining that we (and lots of other adoptive parents, as it turns out) were being audited re: our adoption tax credit. The folks at IRS gave us 30 days to gather our receipts, invoices, cancelled checks, etc. to document our expenses and submit said documents to their tax examiner. If we couldn’t comply within the time limit, they would set aside our request for a credit and we would be out of luck, meaning no more of our money would be refunded to us. If we got them the paperwork, then they would review our records and decide how much more of our money they would refund to us. (Am I bitter? Just a tad bit . . .)

Anyway, this might seem to be an easy fix to those unfamiliar with foreign adoption. After all, if you adopt, you work with an agency and that’s a business, right? Businesses give receipts and invoices, right? And everyone has cancelled checks, rights? Um, not so much. See, we adopted from Kazakhstan…on the other side of the freakin’ earth…and it’s a cash economy…that uses its own currency…and English isn’t the language of Kazakhstan. The aforementioned issues presented a teensy problem to securing what IRS needed in a timely manner

She went on to explain the challenges of documenting expenses (challenges we shared in our own audit, when I ultimately decided it was simply futile trying to document how we spent all the cash we took to Ethiopia). Her post concluded as she wrapped up the audit and waited for the IRS to respond:


Anyway, here we are, 30 days later. For the last several days, my dining room table has been covered with documents. I’ve been reliving my bad old times of adoption dossier preparation but in reverse this time. I finally got it all compiled, copies made, and the huge package of receipts, invoices, translations and conversions sent off to the IRS via Express mail. Now we wait for an answer…to see how much of our money the IRS will give us back. Let’s see if they can turn it around in 30 days like I had to. Bitter??? Nooooo, not me.

Is it the IRS’s job to frustrate and obstruct the intent of Congress by targeting vulnerable families? Once again, here’s the Taxpayer Advocate Service:


With respect to the Adoption Credit, and in particular the credit for adoption of special needs children, the IRS has failed abysmally to take into account that over 45 percent of adopting families are at or below 200 percent federal poverty level, presenting particular communication and functional literacy challenges even as they are desperately in need of the funds which Congress has sought to deliver to them.

As an adoptive family, it’s sometimes difficult to describe the immense challenges in gathering paperwork, opening your lives to social workers for home studies, then expensive travel to sometimes-corrupt foreign locales to then launch a new life with a child you love immensely but who is also experiencing his or her own culture shock and adjustment. All of this places a great strain on family finances and emotions. To then face an audit on the other side? All so the IRS can collect a whopping 1 percent additional revenue? It’s beyond the pale. If the IRS is concerned about fraud, it can audit random samples, not the vast majority of adoptive families claiming the credit.

The IRS is a broken institution. Yet despite its moral and legal corruption, it still wields immense power. As Congress investigates wrongdoing, it’s past time to consider fundamental tax reform. In other words, starve the beast. It has proven it can’t be trusted with power.

That's just insane but then nothing surprises me when it comes to the left's attitude toward children. Kill 'em before they're born at any time and when someone does try and adopt that WANTED child, put 'em through hell and zap their resources for doing so.

Seriously.

While you're parsing, or avoiding the last two posts, Alan Dershowitz has weighed in...


Lois Lerner, the Internal Revenue Service’s embattled director of Exempt Organizations, could be held in contempt of court and jailed for refusing to testify before Congress, civil-rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz says.

"She's in trouble. She can be held in contempt," Dershowitz told "the Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.

"Congress . . . can actually hold you in contempt and put you in the Congressional jail."

Lerner, grilled Wednesday on the IRS' targeting of conservative organizations, invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination — but not before insisting "I have done nothing wrong."

Her brief statement of innocence has opened a legal Pandora's Box, according to Dershowitz.

"You can't simply make statements about a subject and then plead the Fifth in response to questions about the very same subject," the renowned Harvard Law professor said.

"Once you open the door to an area of inquiry, you have waived your Fifth Amendment right . . . you've waived your self-incrimination right on that subject matter."

He said the fact that Lerner went ahead with her proclamation of could be considered malpractice on the part of her attorney — although it's possible she overruled the advice she received.

"It should never have been allowed. She should have been told by her attorney that the law is clear, that once you open up an area of inquiry for interrogation, you have to respond," he said.

"Now she may have made a political decision that it's worth it to take the risk . . . That's just not the way the law works. It may be the way politics works . . . but she can't invoke the Fifth."

He said the issue goes back to the "bad old days" of McCarthyism, during hearings in which suspected Communists were grilled by the House on American Activities Committee and Senate committees.

"[They] tried to trap people by saying, look, you're a Fifth Amendment communist, you won't answer any questions," he said.

"And the people would say we'd love to answer your questions but we can't because if we do, we waive [our rights] and then you'll ask us who our friends are and who else was a member of the Communist Party.. .

"The law is as clear as could be, that once you open up an area of inquiry, you can't shut off the spigot – that's the metaphor that the Supreme Court has used."

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com Alan Dershowitz: IRS Chief Lerner 'Can Be Held in Contempt' (http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/lerner-irs-held-contempt/2013/05/22/id/505922#ixzz2U86lUCOo)
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!


I certainly did not think you could just give your side of the story and expect that to be the end of it.

She was poorly served by council . As I understand it ;her lawyer is politically connected to the Obots so perhaps this was a set up so she can take the fall.

Hello again, Steve:


I certainly did not think you could just give your side of the story and expect that to be the end of it.If that's what she did, then you'd be right... However, I don't believe saying you're innocent qualifies as telling your side of the story.

But, it looks like Issa is going to get himself bogged down into THAT morass. He's more like Inspector Clouseau, than he is Sam Irvin.

Excon

I believe the issue is not auditing (yet), it's politically motivated targeting of conservative groups for unreasonable, unconstitutional scrutiny by the IRS. It's about equal protection, it's about free speech, it's about using the government machine to not only influence the election but harass and intimidate conservatives - possibly by multiple government agencies - for nothing more than being concerned citizens exercising their rights.

I have no doubt there were probably targeted audits as well, it's difficult to imagine there weren't some. Even the most hardcore lefty probably realizes that.

I can dig being fair under the law, a long a we are clear what the law really say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)


Political activity [edit]

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from supporting political candidates, and are subject to limits on lobbying. They risk loss of tax exempt status if these rules are violated.[30][31]

Elections [edit]

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to intervene in elections to public office.[32] The Internal Revenue Service website elaborates upon this prohibition as follows:

So my question is how do you tell how the TParty uses it status since they publicly back candidate and contribute to campaigns? How would you even go about investigating them?

See also, http://irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Publication-78-Help

And

http://www.guidestar.org/

Most of the organization that have been approved for this status left or right, do NOT qualify, and may owe the taxpayer BIG BUCK! :)

Hello again, Steve:

If that's what she did, then you'd be right... However, I don't believe saying you're innocent qualifies as telling your side of the story.

I would laugh but I'm just going to assume you haven't seen her testimony. She laid out her defense, addressed the presumed charges and declared her innocence. If that isn't opening the spigot I don't know what is.

MDevz5uBd5o

I can dig being fair under the law, a long a we are clear what the law really say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)


So my question is how do you tell how the TParty uses it status since they publically back candidate and contribute to campaigns? How would you even go about investigating them?

See also, Publication 78 Help (http://irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Publication-78-Help)

and

GuideStar nonprofit reports and Forms 990 for donors, grantmakers and businesses (http://www.guidestar.org/)

Most of the organization that have been approved for this status left or right, do NOT qualify, and may owe the taxpayer BIG BUCK! :)


Asked and answered (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3465235-post9.html).

You don't need her testimony, if you subpoena the actual documents. That will tell you who did the work, and how they proceeded at an office level on a case by case basis, it would also reveal the instructions given, and by whom.

Congress can still offer her immunity which in no way prohibit action for prosecutions later. If you didn't holler for her head from the get go, she may have not thrown the 5th amendment at you.

Whether her 5th amendment claim is valid is something a judge may have to decide.

Asked and answered (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3465235-post9.html).

Elaborate on your answer as it lacks guidelines for a procedure that properly categorizes the so called TARGETED organizations. If you don't know it, then how can you holler they were indeed targeted and suffered harm?

If you are saying groups cannot be investigated by googling and tracing their websites then you are in error.

Amazing!! The only thing that has happened in a bipartisan manner in the last 5 years is the consensus outrage over the conduct of the IRS in it's review process of the exemption applications . From the President on down ,the conduct has been called outrageous and unacceptable . Just yesterday a Dem Congressman on the Issa Committee ;Rep. Stephen F. Lynch of Massachusetts ,raised the specter of a special prosecutor over the stonewalling by senior IRS staff. The Treasury inspector general for tax administration's audit.. clearly reports that conservative groups were targeted .

And yet there are still apologists who insist it didn't happen .

Elaborate on your answer as it lacks guidelines for a procedure that properly categorizes the so called TARGETED organizations. If you don't know it, then how can you holler they were indeed targeted and suffered harm?

If you are saying groups cannot be investigated by googling and tracing their websites then you are in error.

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4568136834220869&pid=1.7

Let me be clear Tom, since this practice has years of history, and abuse screw the investigation as congress should act to bring clarity to the matter. Then we can review, and proceed accordingly.

They have refused actions on this problem for decades, and now it's an outrage because the right is a victim? That's my outrage. Seniors losing a meal is a bigger scandal, not watching congress and the right be outraged over a intentional semantic tiff, with a public farce of an investigation by amateurs.

It was never a problem until the Nixonian decision to target political opponents with the power of the IRS . Whether there is a flaw in the language of the law is a completely irrelevant issue.

Make a deal with Lois Lerner . Immunity if she truthfully testifies about the true source of the orders to the IRS to target conservative and Tea Party groups.

Let me be clear Tom, since this practice has years of history, and abuse screw the investigation as congress should act to bring clarity to the matter. Then we can review, and proceed accordingly.

They have refused actions on this problem for decades, and now it's an outrage because the right is a victim? That's my outrage. Seniors losing a meal is a bigger scandal, not watching congress and the right be outraged over a intentional semantic tiff, with a public farce of an investigation by amateurs.

Sigh, amazing.

Hello again, tom:


Whether there is a flaw in the language of the law is a completely irrelevant issue.There's no flaw. There's what congress ORDERED.. And, there's what the IRS CHANGED it to... In fact, mandating that the IRS obey the law as written by congress is a simple, and QUICK fix. The IRS can NEVER do this again.

I talked about this the other day, but Steve kept insisting the law used the word PRIMARILY, when in fact, it uses the word EXCLUSIVELY.. It makes a BIG difference.

That doesn't solve the problem of who was doing the targeting, USING this little weapon the IRS granted itself, if they were, and how high up the food chain it goes.. But that's another matter.

Excon

USING this little weapon the IRS granted itself, if they were, and how high up the food chain it goes.. But that's another matter.
No actually it is the only matter . Gee what a surprise that laws are written vague and subject to interpretation ! Since when is any law written in plain unambiguous language ?
The only issue here is the uneven application of the law . And using the law targeting of political opponents. THE IRS ADMITS THIS FUNAMENTAL BASIC FACT. But you are hung up on the language of the law . It is irrelevant to the basic facts that the constitutional rights of many organizations and individuals were denied because of their political and /or religious associations.

While you lefties are still arguing this is Congress' fault and/or ignoring the plain fact of the law, Pelosi adds another passing excuse (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/23/pelosi_blames_bush_appointee_for_politicized_irs_s candal.html) to relieve Obama from any responsibility in this, beyond the other excuse of Shulman being a Bush appointee (and DNC donor (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/douglas-shulman/gIQAjjnrAP_topic.html)). It could just as well have been Boehner's fault!


The president doesn't know about everything that is going in every agency in government. Should Mr. Boehner have known because this is the neighborhood in Cincinnati where the IRS office is.

Nope, the buck never stops at Obama's desk.

No actually it is the only matter . Gee what a surprise that laws are written vague and subject to interpretation ! Since when is any law written in plain unambiguous language ?
There's a problem understanding the difference between "exclusively" and "primarily"?

I read tomder's posts exclusively (i.e. I read ONLY his posts) OR I read tomder's post primarily (i.e. I read his but I also read other posts).

And ? What has that to do with the uneven application of the law and the specific targeting of TP ,Christian,and conservative groups ? AGAIN the IRS admits that's what they did.

Hello tom:


and the specific targeting of TP ,Christian,and conservative groups ? AGAIN the IRS admits that's what they did.You talk about the words exclusively and primarily having nothing to do with this fiasco.. And, you SAY the IRS used the word "targeted", but I wonder if that's REALLY the word they used or the word you think they used.

I've never really seen the statement.. Can you link me?

Excon

and ? what has that to do with the uneven application of the law and the specific targetting of TP ,Christian,and conservative groups ? AGAIN the IRS admits that's what they did.
And they have done it to liberal groups too. They need to be spanked and the tax code adjusted back to the original language and everyone get a course in how to run the IRS fairly. And then remind groups wanting non-profit status to avoid giving the organization's name a political odor.

Which animal shelter name sounds political? Little Paws or Dem Little Paws

They admitted Googling 300 applicants and a fourth had TParty, and patriots in there name. That's why I will hold my outrage for after the investigation and have facts. Opinions and feelings are not enough.

There's a problem understanding the difference between "exclusively" and "primarily"?

I read tomder's posts exclusively (i.e. I read ONLY his posts) OR I read tomder's post primarily (i.e. I read his but I also read other posts).

The only problem here is thus far every excuse thus far ranges somewhere between irrelevant and ridiculous. Kimberly Strassel demolished the SCOTUS blame game and pointed out that conservative groups:have been targeted since 2008 - the Obama campaign invented the tactic. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324659404578501411510635312.html?m od=rss_opinion_main)


The White House insists President Obama is "outraged" by the "inappropriate" targeting and harassment of conservative groups. If true, it's a remarkable turnaround for a man who helped pioneer those tactics.

On Aug. 21, 2008, the conservative American Issues Project ran an ad highlighting ties between candidate Obama and Bill Ayers, formerly of the Weather Underground. The Obama campaign and supporters were furious, and they pressured TV stations to pull the ad—a common-enough tactic in such ad spats.

What came next was not common. Bob Bauer, general counsel for the campaign (and later general counsel for the White House), on the same day wrote to the criminal division of the Justice Department, demanding an investigation into AIP, "its officers and directors," and its "anonymous donors." Mr. Bauer claimed that the nonprofit, as a 501(c)(4), was committing a "knowing and willful violation" of election law, and wanted "action to enforce against criminal violations."

AIP gave Justice a full explanation as to why it was not in violation. It said that it operated exactly as liberal groups like Naral Pro-Choice did. It noted that it had disclosed its donor, Texas businessman Harold Simmons. Mr. Bauer's response was a second letter to Justice calling for the prosecution of Mr. Simmons. He sent a third letter on Sept. 8, again smearing the "sham" AIP's "illegal electoral purpose."

Also on Sept. 8, Mr. Bauer complained to the Federal Election Commission about AIP and Mr. Simmons. He demanded that AIP turn over certain tax documents to his campaign (his right under IRS law), then sent a letter to AIP further hounding it for confidential information (to which he had no legal right).

The Bauer onslaught was a big part of a new liberal strategy to thwart the rise of conservative groups. In early August 2008, the New York Times trumpeted the creation of a left-wing group (a 501(c)4) called Accountable America. Founded by Obama supporter and liberal activist Tom Mattzie, the group—as the story explained—would start by sending "warning" letters to 10,000 GOP donors, "hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions." The letters would alert "right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives." As Mr. Mattzie told Mother Jones: "We're going to put them at risk."

The Bauer letters were the Obama campaign's high-profile contribution to this effort—though earlier, in the spring of 2008, Mr. Bauer filed a complaint with the FEC against the American Leadership Project, a group backing Hillary Clinton in the primary. "There's going to be a reckoning here," he had warned publicly. "It's going to be rough—it's going to be rough on the officers, it's going to be rough on the employees, it's going to be rough on the donors. . . Whether it's at the FEC or in a broader criminal inquiry, those donors will be asked questions." The campaign similarly attacked a group supporting John Edwards.

American Leadership head (and Democrat) Jason Kinney would rail that Mr. Bauer had gone from "credible legal authority" to "political hatchet man"—but the damage was done. As Politico reported in August 2008, Mr. Bauer's words had "the effect of scaring [Clinton and Edwards] donors and consultants," even if they hadn't yet "result[ed] in any prosecution."

As general counsel to the Obama re-election campaign, Mr. Bauer used the same tactics on pro-Romney groups. The Obama campaign targeted private citizens who had donated to Romney groups. Democratic senators demanded that the IRS investigate these organizations.

None of this proves that Mr. Obama was involved in the IRS targeting of conservative nonprofits. But it does help explain how we got an environment in which the IRS thought this was acceptable.

The rise of conservative organizations (to match liberal groups that had long played in politics), and their effectiveness in the 2004 election (derided broadly by liberals as "swift boating"), led to a new and organized campaign in 2008 to chill conservative donors and groups via the threat of government investigation and prosecution. The tone in any organization—a charity, a corporation, the U.S. government—is set at the top.

This history also casts light on White House claims that it was clueless about the IRS's targeting. As Huffington Post's Howard Fineman wrote this week: "With two winning presidential campaigns built on successful grassroots fundraising, with a former White House counsel (in 2010-11) who is one of the Democrats' leading experts on campaign law (Bob Bauer), with former top campaign officials having been ensconced as staffers in the White House.. . it's hard to imagine that the Obama inner circle was oblivious to the issue of what the IRS was doing in Cincinnati." More like inconceivable.

And this history xeposes the left's hollow claim that the IRS mess rests on Citizens United. The left was targeting conservative groups and donors well before the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling on independent political expenditures by corporations.

If the country wants to get to the bottom of the IRS scandal, it must first remember the context for this abuse. That context leads to this White House.

So if you want to know how we got here there you go, it started with the Obama campaign.

They admitted Googling 300 applicants and a fourth had TParty, and patriots in there name. That's why I will hold my outrage for after the investigation and have facts. Opinions and feelings are not enough.

Um, I don't know where you keep coming up with this lame line but why would the IRS need to Google "applicants" for their name, it's on the application.

And before 2008? Since 1959? (lotta years in between those two dates)

Hello again, Steve:

If the country wants to get to the bottom of the IRS scandal, it must first remember the context for this abuse. That context leads to this White House. Context, schmontext. Show me PROOF. Until then, all we got is a lot of right wing gums flapping...

Excon

And before 2008? since 1959? (lotta years in between those two dates)

Obama wasn't running for president in 1959. Can we stick to what's relevant to the current scandal and not silly diversions?

Lol that's what the Repubics said in 1973... up until the day they walked to the White House and told Nixon he had no support on Capitol Hill .

Hello again, Steve:
Context, schmontext. Show me PROOF. Until then, all we got is a lot of right wing gums flapping...

excon

Feel free to dispute the facts that Strassel laid out (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3470272-post148.html), until then all we got is some left-wing gums flappin'.

Um, I don't know where you keep coming up with this lame line but why would the IRS need to Google "applicants" for their name, it's on the application.

That's the first thing anyone does to learn more about the organization. Didn't you read my links I provided about the websites for donors, and the IRS lists of exempt entities?

If you had then you would know that everyone Google's to find out more and it's the tool of choice for verifying what's on the application. You should also know from he links I provided that more forms are needed for the IRS to fully evaluate any applicant and its spelled out pretty clearly what those forms are.

How would you verify facts on an application?

You seem to think Obama invented these loopholes and how to exploit the power of the presidency and ignore the fact it been done in some form or another by virtually every president in history.

As technology becomes more advanced and you learn more about what use to be not in the public eye I expect the right to holler much louder in the future than they do now, because most of this is old hat. Its been done before and nothing new.

Obama wasn't running for president in 1959. Can we stick to what's relevant to the current scandal and not silly diversions?
There was no precedent set for the current IRS?

Which animal shelter name sounds political? Little Paws or Dem Little Paws

Which one would you, as an IRS employee, check up on?

That's the first thing anyone does to learn more about the organization. Didn't you read my links I provided about the websites for donors, and the IRS lists of exempt entities?

If you had then you would know that everyone Google's to find out more and it's the tool of choice for verifying what's on the application. You should also know from he links I provided that more forms are needed for the IRS to fully evaluate any applicant and its spelled out pretty clearly what those forms are.

How would you verify facts on an application?

You seem to think Obama invented these loopholes and how to exploit the power of the presidency and ignore the fact it been done in some form or another by virtually every president in history.

As technology becomes more advanced and you learn more about what use to be not in the public eye I expect the right to holler much louder in the future than they do now, because most of this is old hat. Its been done before and nothing new.

Sigh, your words:


They admitted Googling 300 applicants and a fourth had TParty, and patriots in there name.

Their name is on the application, they don't need to Google it.

Hello again, Steve:

Couple things.

DEMANDING an investigation is substantially different than ORDERING one. Unless you can PROVE Obama ORDERED the IRS to do ANYTHING, you got NOTHING.

You got NOTHING on ANY of the so called scandals you wingers created... I'm bored... Call me when you find the smoking gun.

excon

Hello tom:

You talk about the words exclusively and primarily having nothing to do with this fiasco.. And, you SAY the IRS used the word "targeted", but I wonder if that's REALLY the word they used or the word you think they used.

I've never really seen the statement.. Can you link me?

Excon
Sure this is just from the summary of the IG audit :


HIGHLIGHTS

INAPPROPRIATE CRITERIA WERE
USED TO IDENTIFY TAX-EXEMPT
APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW

Highlights
Final Report issued on May 14, 2013
Highlights of Reference Number: 2013-10-053
To the Internal Revenue Service Acting
Commissioner, Tax Exempt and Government
Entities Division.

IMPACT ON TAXPAYERS
Early in Calendar Year 2010, the IRS began
using inappropriate criteria to identify
organizations applying for tax-exempt status to
review for indications of significant political
campaign intervention. Although the IRS has
Taken some action, it will need to do more so
That the public has reasonable assurance that
Applications are processed without
Unreasonable delay in a fair and impartial
Manner in the future.

WHY TIGTA DID THE AUDIT
TIGTA initiated this audit based on concerns
Expressed by members of Congress. The
overall objective of this audit was to determine
whether allegations were founded that the IRS:
1) targeted specific groups applying for
tax-exempt status, 2) delayed processing of
targeted groups' applications, and 3) requested
unnecessary information from targeted groups.

WHAT TIGTA FOUND
The IRS used inappropriate criteria that
identified for review Tea Party and other
organizations applying for tax-exempt status
based upon their names or policy positions
instead of indications of potential political
campaign intervention. Ineffective management:
1) allowed inappropriate criteria to be developed
and stay in place for more than 18 months,
2) resulted in substantial delays in processing
certain applications, and 3) allowed unnecessary
information requests to be issued.

Although the processing of some applications
With potential significant political campaign
Intervention was started soon after receipt, no
Work was completed on the majority of these
Applications for 13 months. This was due to
Delays in receiving assistance from the Exempt
Organizations function Headquarters office.
For the 296 total political campaign intervention
Applications TIGTA reviewed as of
December 17, 2012, 108 had been approved,
28 were withdrawn by the applicant, none had
Been denied, and 160 were open from 206 to
1,138 calendar days (some for more than
Three years and crossing two election cycles).
More than 20 months after the initial case was
Identified, processing the cases began in
Earnest. Many organizations received requests
for additional information from the IRS that
included unnecessary, burdensome questions
(e.g., lists of past and future donors). The IRS
later informed some organizations that they did
not need to provide previously requested
information. IRS officials stated that any donor
information received in response to a request
from its Determinations Unit was later destroyed.
http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf

This only scratches the surface. Like I said already ;the IRS has apologized for the inappropriate criteria for review that was used specifically for targeted groups. There is no denying this basic fact. The only thing left to find out is how high up the food chain this goes.

Hello again, tom:


Sure this is just from the summary of the IG audit : That's what the IG said - NOT the IRS. I want to know if anybody from IRS said they "targeted" conservative organizations.

Excon

Sigh, your words:



Their name is on the application, they don't need to Google it.

How is a fourth targeting just the TPARTY? And how does the NAME on an application exempt further investigation? Are you saying investigate everyone EXCEPT the TPARTY?

That's utterly ridiculous.

How is a fourth targeting just the TPARTY? And how does the NAME on an application exempt further investigation? Are you saying investigate everyone EXCEPT the TPARTY?

That's utterly ridiculous.

What's utterly ridiculous are your questions.

There is only relevant fact needed to answer your silly questions. From the outset, and the whole reason this came up - as noted in the original post on this board (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/right-wing-moving-further-right-2-0-a-742592-5.html#post3460706) - was an IRS admission of wrongdoing in targeting conservative groups.

'Nuff said, your repeated hammering at this same nonsense is pointless.

Hello again, tom:

That's what the IG said - NOT the IRS. I wanna know if anybody from IRS said they "targeted" conservative organizations.

excon

I guess their apology means nothing . Even CBS is using the word targeted in their reporting .
IRS targeted tea party groups earlier than 2012 - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57584051/irs-targeted-tea-party-groups-earlier-than-2012/)
But keep on denying it if you choose. By the way Doug Shulman visited the White House 118 times ;and not all of them were to roll easter eggs. I predict he will face pergury charges unless he fesses up about who in the White House was behind this .

Naw, the right wing noise machine is still making this a scandal because the Prez told them to do it.

I ask questions to gain understanding, you holler to make noise and distract from your inability to answer questions. This allows you to keep your own facts that allows you to see what you want.

What you think I didn't notice?

Naw, the right wing noise machine is still making this a scandal because the Prez told them to do it.

I ask questions to gain understanding, you holler to make noise and distract from your inability to answer questions. This allows you to keep your own facts that allows you to see what you want.

What you think I didn't notice?

At least we don't just make 'em up out of thin air, like the war on women which is actually being waged by the left, but I digress. If you still cannot acknowledge the first fact you have no credibility on this my friend.

Hello again, tom:


I guess their apology means nothing . It means something... But, not enough to CONVICT anybody... I'm looking for the WORDS, since you have an affinity for them, out of the IRS mouth that said they TARGETED anybody...

I want to hear the word TARGET out of their mouth. If that word is MISSING, then it's YOUR word, and there's NO scandal... Nothing... Nada. It's right wing gums flapping..

Excon

Hello again, tom:

It means something... But, not enough to CONVICT anybody... I'm looking for the WORDS, since you have an affinity for them, out of the IRS mouth that said they TARGETED anybody...

I wanna hear the word TARGET out of their mouth. If that word is MISSING, then it's YOUR word, and there's NO scandal... Nothing... Nada. It's right wing gums flapping..

excon

So if I killed someone but didn't say "I killed someone" I really didn't kill anyone? You guys logic on this is well, lame - it all depends on what the definition of is is.

So only the exact word coming out of the people who did the offense matters... not the Inspector General who did the investigation . Not the multiple news organizations that the left normally swears by .For that matter ;EVERY major news outlet is using the word to describe what happened.
IRS apologizes for targeting tea party groups (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/irs-apologizes-targeting-conservative-groups)
IRS replaces official who oversaw targeting (http://news.yahoo.com/irs-replaces-official-oversaw-targeting-214522874.html)
IRS IG Report: Targeting Conservatives Began In 2010 - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/irs-began-targeting-conservatives-in-2010/)

Not the words of a long time lefty in good standing Dem Senator; Claire McCaskill,who said :

“I'm mad. It is un-American, it is wrong, and we have to make sure that this gets fixed,” .... “There's a reason Lady Justice wears a blindfold in America. That is because in America, we don't apply the law based on who you are, who you know, or what you believe. We apply the law equally.”...
“We should not only fire the head of the IRS, which has occurred, but we've got to go down the line and find every single person who had anything to do with this and make sure that they are removed from the IRS and the word goes out that this is unacceptable,” she..... “It is un-American, it is wrong, and it cannot occur again.”

Hello again, wingers:

so only the exact word coming out of the people who did the offense matters... What matters is YOU said, THEY said they TARGETED people, and they DIDN'T say that at all.

Here's some more words you might or might not understand. If they SAID they targeted people, that's an admission.. If they DIDN'T say that, and YOU did, that's an accusation.

And, THAT matters.

Excon

I'll go with the IG accusing them and take it from there .

Lol, it's amusing that you suddenly won't accept admission of wrongdoing as evidence, but this idea that unless they said a certain word it didn't happen is really bizarre. But I'll play along once.


Let's say immigration was profiling young Muslim men, or the cops were profiling young black men wearing hoodies, would that be targeting?

Let's say the IRS put out a BOLO - “Be On the Look Out” - for Tea Party organizations applying for tax exempt status, would that be targeting?


“In May 2010, the Determinations Unit [of the IRS] began developing a spreadsheet that would become known as the “Be On the Look Out” listing (hereafter referred to as the BOLO listing), which included the emerging issue of Tea Party applications. In June 2010, the Determinations Unit began training its specialists on issues to be aware of, including Tea Party cases. By July 2010, Determinations Unit management stated that it had requested its specialists to be on the lookout for Tea Party applications.” (Treasury Inspector General report)

Target :

Verb
1. attack, aim at, pick out, single out, fire at
2. choose, select, single out, earmark, fix on
Collins Thesaurus of the English Language

Hello again, Steve:


Lol, it's amusing that you suddenly won't accept admission of wrongdoing as evidenceOh, contraire. I'm LOOKING for an admission. That's why I asked tom to LINK it to me. He couldn't. I'm still waiting..

Until then, this isn't about what THEY said.. It's about what YOU said they said, which they clearly DIDN'T..

One is an admission. I know what that is. The other is an accusation. I know what that is too. They're NOT the same thing. One is a scandal. The other isn't.

I don't know what so hard about this.

Excon

No there actually is an admission... just not using the EXACT word targeted . It came from Lois Lerner herself . You know... the one who 1st claimed it was the doing of lower level staffers and now invokes constitutional protection against self incrimination.

Hello again, Steve:

Oh, contraire. I'm LOOKING for an admission. That's why I asked tom to LINK it to me. He couldn't. I'm still waiting..

Until then, this isn't about what THEY said.. It's about what YOU said they said, which they clearly DIDN'T..

One is an admission. I know what that is. The other is an accusation. I know what that is too. They're NOT the same thing. One is a scandal. The other isn't.

I dunno what so hard about this.

excon

I don't know what's so hard about this either, I've linked (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/right-wing-moving-further-right-2-0-a-742592-5.html#post3460706) to it at least 3 times AFTER my original post - the ADMISSION is what started this whole thing. What the heck is so difficult to understand about that??

Hello again, tom:


just not using the EXACT word targetedOk, So, that's the word the right wing attached to it.. Now, we're getting someplace... What word DID she use when she admitted targeting?

Excon

No WE did not attach the word to it . It was the IG ,it was the President's spokesman Jay Carney ,it's White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler ;it's EVERYONE in the MSM It's even the Huffpo,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/20/white-house-irs-probe_n_3307928.html
... in fact ,it's everyone but you.

no there actually is an admission ... just not using the EXACT word targeted . It came from Lois Lerner herself . You know ... the one who 1st claimed it was the doing of lower level staffers and now invokes constitutional protection against self incrimination.

She has a right to protect herself from right wing fear mongers who react to the smell of blood in the water, and need a scapegoat in case they fail to impeach the president they hate more than they hate the IRS.

Everything is a possible scandal because that's what the want on the right.

Hello again, Steve:

I see that she said they "singled out" certain applications.. My tax returns were singled out too on several occasions, but I wasn't targeted.. It was for further examination... That appears to be what happened here. Examining them further isn't TARGETING. That's what the IRS DOES.

That the dingbat Lois Lerner said the apology word, isn't enough to convince me they "targeted" anybody...

excon

She has a right to protect herself from right wing fear mongers who react to the smell of blood in the water, and need a scapegoat in case they fail to impeach the president they hate more than they hate the IRS.

Everything is a possible scandal because that's what the want on the right.

Tal, you and ex are among the 14 people in the country that don't see a scandal.

http://www.thelibertyvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/see-no-evil.jpg

Hello tom:

Tal, you and ex are among the 14 people in the country that don't see a scandal.I've never minded being in the minority. I see a bureaucratic boondoggle. I see bad management. But, I don't see a scandal.

Look. Don't get me wrong.. I HATE government, and the IRS especially.. I also don't mind seeing Obama take a fall IF he's dirty... I don't carry his water. But, in order for me to DO that, I need PROOF. I need a smoking gun. I need something other than dufus IRS employees.

Yes, the IRS guy visited the White House a bunch of times... That proves that he's been to the White House a bunch of times. I don't want to HEAR that crap. It's STUPID crap. I don't want to know what you THINK. I KNOW what you think.

I want to know what the FACTS are...

Excon

Hello tom:
I've never minded being in the minority. I see a bureaucratic boondoggle. I see bad management. But, I don't see a scandal.

Look. Don't get me wrong.. I HATE government, and the IRS especially.. I also don't mind seeing Obama take a fall IF he's dirty... I don't carry his water. But, in order for me to DO that, I need PROOF. I need a smoking gun. I need something other than dufus IRS employees.

Yes, the IRS guy visited the White House a bunch of times... That proves that he's been to the White House a bunch of times. I don't wanna HEAR that crap. It's STUPID crap. I don't wanna know what you THINK. I KNOW what you think.

I wanna know what the FACTS are...

excon

I'm still not tom but when the IRS ADMITS wrongdoing and APOLOGIZES for it you can damn sure bet it's worse than they let on.

I see a bureaucratic boondoggle. I see bad management... even worse if you ask me. I see a bloated government where the bureaucracy is the ruling class that makes up their own rules as they go along. I think we are better off if it turns out they took marching orders from someone connected to who is really supposed to be in charge.

But the left wants the government to have ever more expansive powers over the people . That's why they gave Obamacare enforcement powers to the most intimidating agency in the government . Well this should be just a hint of how they plan on wielding that power .

Posted by tomder55;
... even worse if you ask me. I see a bloated government where the bureaucracy is the ruling class that makes up their own rules as they go along. I think we are better off if it turns out they took marching orders from someone connected to who is really supposed to be in charge.

As opposed to the rich elite who are not accountable to the electorate?


But the left wants the government to have ever more expansive powers over the people . That's why they gave Obamacare enforcement powers to the most intimidating agency in the government . Well this should be just a hint of how they plan on wielding that power.

Not expansive, more effective and not power over people but power of the people.

I doubt there can be any enforcement of the new law before 2016. Don't panic, we can iron the glitches out if you guys stop trying to repeal it before it starts, and send us back to the mercy of the capitalist free market... AKA... wealth extraction for the few.

Hello again, tom:


I think we are better off if it turns out they took marching orders from someone connected to who is really supposed to be in charge. Couple things..

I DON'T think we're better off finding out that our government is corrupt. Of course, if it IS, we are, but I'm willing to wait for PROOF.

In terms of "running" Obama care, the IRS is only going to be in charge of verifying eligibility. That might take two people and some good software. Besides that, they ain't in charge of ANYTHING.

They're looking at Sarah Palin to run the Death Panels, though. She needs some good honest work.

Excon

Hello again, tom:

Couple things..

I DON'T think we're better off finding out that our government is corrupt. Of course, if it IS, we are, but I'm willing to wait for PROOF.

In terms of "running" Obama care, the IRS is only going to be in charge of verifying eligibility. That might take two people and some good software. Besides that, they ain't in charge of ANYTHING.

They're looking at Sarah Palin to run the Death Panels, though. She needs some good honest work.

excon


I never thought I would ever hear excon sounding like Joe Arpaio.

Sheriff Joe to Hawaii: Show Us The Proof! (http://www.westernjournalism.com/sheriff-joe-hawaii-show-us-proof/#)!

Wonders will never cease

Hello again, tom:

Couple things..

I DON'T think we're better off finding out that our government is corrupt. Of course, if it IS, we are, but I'm willing to wait for PROOF.

In terms of "running" Obama care, the IRS is only going to be in charge of verifying eligibility. That might take two people and some good software. Besides that, they ain't in charge of ANYTHING.

They're looking at Sarah Palin to run the Death Panels, though. She needs some good honest work.

excon

Mr. head in the sand, the IRS has ALREADY created 8 offices to be staffed with 2137 agents (http://washingtonexaminer.com/giant-octopus-irs-has-8-offices-to-enforce-obamacare/article/2530200) to deal with Obamacare... so far.

What could go wrong?

That's correct .The rest of Obamacare will be run by the shake down artist HHS Director Sebilius.

that's correct .The rest of Obamacare will be run by the shake down artist HHS Director Sebilius.

And watch for riing rates as they are about to skyrocket by 2017.

Sebelius: Well, yeah actually, ObamaCare is causing insurance premiums to rise « Hot Air (http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/27/sebelius-well-yeah-actually-obamacare-is-causing-insurance-premiums-to-rise/)

Those insurance companies will take any excuse eh?

Claims of political targeting by the IRS are flooding into the House Ways and Means Committee now that people targeted realize they were victims of this invasion of their rights. Some recorded their conversations according to David Drucker ,Washington Examiner's Sr Congressional correspondent.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/house-committee-wants-to-hear-from-anyone-targeted-by-the-irs/article/%20https://waysandmeans.house.gov/forms/form/?ID=2538
The Committee has set up a web site for those affected to share their story.
https://waysandmeans.house.gov/forms/form/?ID=2538

I'm willing to wait for PROOF

If it walks and quacks like a duck it must be a duck.
I have no expectation of finding a smoking gun . The Emperor and his courtiers are too smart for that . But all the dots lead directly to the White House.
If ever the Issa Committee gets really serious about this ,they will start asking questions of Robert Bauer, general counsel for Zero's presidential campaigns, White House general counsel during his first term, and counsel to Clintoon during his Senate impeachment trial. He is also husband of Anita Dunn, White House communications director in the Emperor's first term.He is also author of "Soft Money, Hard Law: A Guide to the New Campaign Finance Law" '
The Obot's demanded the IRS criminally prosecute conservative groups with 501(c)4 tax status during his 2008 campaign .
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324659404578501411510635312.html?m od=opinion_newsreel
Then, last year, Zero's re-election campaign targeted private citizens who had donated to Romney groups ,and of course it has been documented that donors the Romney's campaign were aggressively audited .
The people directing this did not have to have direct marching orders from the Emperor to know what was expected of them .

All ducks aside Tom it seems BO just can't get his ducks in a row, could be he is a dead duck as well as being a lame duck

all ducks aside Tom it seems BO just can't get his ducks in a row, could be he is a dead duck as well as being a lame duck

It took you 24 hours to hunt down a duck pun that lame? Don't quit your day job.

It took you 24 hours to hunt down a duck pun that lame? Don't quit your day job.

All my own work but I didn't try hard after all it was so obvious, quack, quack! Duck the only animal who has learned to say his own name, quack quack!

Got to go now and do some real work

Hey, remember that Gibson guitar raid, where they were accused of using verboten rosewood? The one where their facilities were raided by heavily armed agents, had materials and hard drives confiscated, forced to spend millions in attorney fees and paid a fine yet no wrongdoing was found - even though a competitor using the same wood was left alone?

Turns out the problem seems to be it's all which party you donate to.

IRS Tea Party Intimidation An Echo Of Raids On Gibson Guitar - Investors.com (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/052313-657569-gibson-guitar-raid-like-tea-party-intimidation.htm?p=full)

Hey, remember that Gibson guitar raid, where they were accused of using verboten rosewood? The one where their facilities were raided by heavily armed agents, had materials and hard drives confiscated, forced to spend millions in attorney fees and paid a fine yet no wrongdoing was found - even though a competitor using the exact same wood was left alone?

Turns out the problem seems to be it's all which party you donate to.

IRS Tea Party Intimidation An Echo Of Raids On Gibson Guitar - Investors.com (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/052313-657569-gibson-guitar-raid-like-tea-party-intimidation.htm?p=full)

And the really fun part is that Gibson hasn't gotten their hardwoods back, three years later.

That's their version, here is the other one,

Gibson Guitar Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibson_Guitar_Corporation)


The case was settled on August 6, 2012, with Gibson admitting to violating the Lacey Act and agreeing to pay a fine of $300,000 in addition to a $50,000 community payment. Gibson also forfeited the wood seized in the raids, which was valued at roughly the same amount at the settlement.[27][28] The case raised concerns for musicians who lack documentation of vintage instruments made of traditional, non-sustainable materials.[17][29] However, officials from the Justice Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have stated that musicians who unknowingly possess instruments made from illegal wood would not be treated as criminals.[30]

Lacey Act of 1900 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacey_Act_of_1900)


The Lacey Act protects both plants and wildlife by creating civil and criminal penalties for a wide array of violations. It prohibits trade in wildlife, fish, and plants that have been illegally taken, transported or sold. The law is still in effect, although it has been amended several times.[1]

This environmental legislation came under attack starting in 2009 when facilities of Gibson Guitar Corporation were raided and hardwoods that had been illegally harvested in Madagascar were seized. Gibson professed its innocence and accused the federal government of bullying. Gibson eventually admitted wrongdoing and settled the case in August 2012, saying it felt "compelled to settle as the costs of proving [the] case at trial would have cost millions of dollars and taken a long time to resolve."[2]

That's their version, here is the other one,

it felt "compelled to settle as the costs of proving [the] case at trial would have cost millions of dollars and taken a long time to resolve
Lacey Act of 1900 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacey_Act_of_1900)

They gave the bully their lunch money rather than keep getting beat up. Mussolini would be SO proud of this government.

accused the federal government of bullying

Really a government that bullies its subjects, go figure

Millions plea bargain because they can't afford a trial, or a lawyer. They holler innocent and paint themselves as victims. Are they?

Tal, it's clear that's how it works with this admin, they hold a gun to your head and say "hey, that's a nice business you have there, sure would hate for anything to happen to it." Then they make it very expensive and difficult to fight it so you pay the fine and get back to work.

Plus, the key here is it was a partisan witch hunt. Their Democrat donating competitor doing the same thing was left alone.

Again, get your head out of the sand.

Hello again,

It IS interesting that right wingers call the government a BULLY when it pursues a corporation, but they LIKE it when peons like me get BULLIED.

Tal is SOOOOO right on, and you wingers are SOOOOO hypocritical...

excon

They gave the bully their lunch money rather than keep getting beat up.That happens every single day with patent trolls, the RIAA extortion suits, and pretty much anytime someone with deeper pockets wants to pick on a small prey to enrich themselves. The system needs to be fixed.

In the Gibson case $300,000 isn't an amount to make the company fail, but patent trolls and the RIAA regularly target small companies and individuals for the same amounts which do cause companies to close and people to declare bankruptcy.

Tal, it's clear that's how it works with this admin, they hold a gun to your head and say "hey, that's a nice business you have therem sure would hate for anything to happen to it." Then they make it very expensive and difficult to fight it so you pay the fine and get back to work.

Plus, the key here is it was a partisan witch hunt. Their Democrat donating competitor doing the exact same thing was left alone.

Again, get your head out of the sand.

They had Email evidence and if Gibson did no wrong then the would have been compensated for lawyers and such. IF they fought and won, and would have recovered the seized property too. Spare me the excuses please.

Haven't you noticed that big companies always settle to make wrong doing go away. They can pass the cost onto the consumer.

Didn't you pay attention to the hearings for Big Oil, and Apple? You guys in congress slobbered all over them with apologies and accolades as they polluted, and hid tax money. And your heroes the Koch's just write a check every time they screw up, and keep screwing up.

When will the right stop hollering victim, and protecting the rights of wrong doers with money? Pardon me if I don't hold my breath.

That happens every single day with patent trolls, the RIAA extortion suits, and pretty much anytime someone with deeper pockets wants to pick on a small prey to enrich themselves. The system needs to be fixed.

In the Gibson case $300,000 isn't an amount to make the company fail, but patent trolls and the RIAA regularly target small companies and individuals for the same amounts which do cause companies to close and people to declare bankruptcy.

No it isn't "much" to them, but they also spent $6 million in attorney fees when they should have been making Les Pauls.

Hello again,

It IS interesting that right wingers call the government a BULLY when it pursues a corporation, but they LIKE it when peons like me get BULLIED.

Tal is SOOOOO right on, and you wingers are SOOOOO hypocritical...

excon

Dude, the hypocrisy is you and Tal's ambivalence toward the government's purely partisan application of the law. I have no dog in this hunt other than a government that's evenhanded that encourages opportunity, not using its sledgehammer to beat the admin's political opposition to a pulp. I don't give a damn who some CEO donates to, that's his right. You know if this were Bush you guys would bust a spleen, so don't talk to me about hypocrisy on this.

They should have made those guitars legally then.

Hello again, hypocrits:

It's absolutely TRUE that you believe a fellow in a 3 piece suit who sits on a board of directors, but you DON'T believe a dirt poor Mexican with tats, or a pants sagging black teenager.

We talked about this before... Bottom line is you absolutely believe that people from the hood should be in jail if they sell some crack, but GIBSON was bullied.

That's OK. You'll NEVER admit your blatant hypocrisy, but it's in our archives for all the world to see.

excon

They had Email evidence and if Gibson did no wrong then the would have been compensated for lawyers and such. IF they fought and won, and would have recovered the seized property too. Spare me the excuses please.

Haven't you noticed that big companies always settle to make wrong doing go away. They can pass the cost onto the consumer.

Didn't you pay attention to the hearings for Big Oil, and Apple? You guys in congress slobbered all over them with apologies and accolades as they polluted, and hid tax money. And your heroes the Koch's just write a check every time they screw up, and keep screwing up.

When will the right stop hollering victim, and protecting the rights of wrong doers with money? Pardon me if I don't hold my breath.


There is no guarantee that they can recover fees that involve fighting in federal courts. Its an option of the courts and has many rules to follow. Putting the business on hold while it is fought out in court wasn't an option for them nor is it an option for most. The email admitted nothing. It only pointed to a possible problem. This type of strong arm opposition that we have seen from this administration is setting new records for the types of politics ahead. Was Apple (whom I hate) actually doing anything wrong? No they weren't. The next time all of these idiots are up for a vote then my suggestion is that any that have been there for awhile no matter what party affiliation throw them out. Make a fresh start.


(PDF file)

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7jrmbKNR2TwAsoVXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByc2FtNTR pBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=11ukngq8b/EXP=1369693542/**http%3a//www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/94-970.pdf

Tal, you have got to be kidding. Do you really believe this administration can do no wrong or are you just on board with betraying our rights and crushing the opposition at all cost?

but they also spent $6 million in attorney fees when they should have been making Les Pauls.That's their problem since they were clearly in violation:

Gibson also forfeited the wood seized in the raids Seems cut and dried, no?

That's their problem since they were clearly in violation:
Seems cut and dried, no?

No not cut and dried at all. It was a move to allow the company to survive. There is way too much misunderstanding in government seizure of private property. They now want to take everything away for any slight infraction of the law. Its getting out of hand fast.

It's not a government seizure of private property. Where do you get that idea?

It's not a government seizure of private property. Where do you get that idea?

They took the wood with them. They held it from the company so it could not be used in production. And now they are keeping it. That sounds like seizure to me. Estimated cost to the company for the wood $300,000.00

A right wing company that got caught doing their illegal stuff decided to plead down should keep their ill gotten gains?

A right wing company that got caught doing their illegal stuff decided to plead down should keep their ill gotten gains?

When there was no proof of the claim made against them then no it shouldn't have been kept. The settlement shows a clerical error not that they actually took possession of an illegal item.

They took the wood with them.Border guards have been seizing thousands upon thousands of items at the borders everyday for decades, is that government seizure of private property?

Border guards have been seizing thousands upon thousands of items at the borders everyday for decades, is that government seizure of private property?
What about at airports?

When there was no proof of the claim made against them then no it shouldnt have been kept. The settlement shows a clerical error not that they actually took possesion of an illegal item.

And that make logical sense to lose property over a clerical error?

Same thing. This government seizing private property has been going on for a very long time yet the right wing ignores it.


:D

And that make logical sense to lose property over a clerical error?

If it means keeping the company open then it was there decision to fight it or not. At this point as part of the settlement it appears the forieture of the property was part of the deal. They had a claim against it and were told to back out to make the settlement go through.

Border guards have been seizing thousands upon thousands of items at the borders everyday for decades, is that government seizure of private property?

Mostly it depends on what laws allowed them to take items. There have been many check points along state lines to aid in stopping infestation of agriculture products produced in a state. So again its how the law reads and what items your talking about. If it is forbidden or over the given limit then it is subject to seizure.

there have been many check points along state lines to aid in stopping infestation of agriculture products produced in a state.but they are seizing private property!

but they are seizing private property!

Yes they are. But here is the difference. The property was illegal to begin with. There is a huge difference. Where it becomes a problem is when they take property not associated with the crime being committed like they do with drugs and prostitution. They take related items in the form of government seizure. The items are not related nor banned in any way.

What your trying to compare is items that have been deemed illegal and those that are not and saying they are one in the same. I believe there is a differnce.

The property was illegal to begin with.Same with the Lacey Act. Get the act changed, not the people who enforce it.

Same with the Lacey Act. Get the act changed, not the people who enforce it.

Other then clerical error there was no evidence that proved the wood wasn't what it was suppose to be. How do you justify that?

It has been amended several times, by Congress.

Other then clerical error there was no evidence that proved the wood wasnt what it was suppose to be. How do you justify that?

Got a link that supports your assertions other than what the "victim" alleges?

Here you go...


In light of Gibson’s acknowledgement of its conduct, its duties under the Lacey Act and its promised cooperation and remedial actions, the government will decline charging Gibson criminally in connection with Gibson’s order, purchase or importation of ebony from Madagascar and ebony and rosewood from India, provided that Gibson fully carries out its obligations under the agreement, and commits no future violations of law, including Lacey Act violations.



“As a result of this investigation and criminal enforcement agreement, Gibson has acknowledged that it failed to act on information that the Madagascar ebony it was purchasing may have violated laws intended to limit overharvesting and conserve valuable wood species from Madagascar, a country which has been severely impacted by deforestation,” said Assistant Attorney General Moreno. “Gibson has ceased acquisitions of wood species from Madagascar and recognizes its duty under the U.S. Lacey Act to guard against the acquisition of wood of illegal origin by verifying the circumstances of its harvest and export, which is good for American business and American consumers.”




Linkage:

USDOJ: Gibson Guitar Corp. Agrees to Resolve Investigation into Lacey Act Violations (http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/August/12-enrd-976.html)

Gibson is acknowledging guilt. Where's the "clerical error"?

Gibson is acknowledging guilt. Where's the "clerical error"?

The error occurred in the debate over the product. There is nothing in the settlement that admits to it being illegal. It only states they may have not followed all the rules properly. Im sure part of the blame goes to the exporter of the blanks. That is where the error comes in. It appears that so far as they (Gibson) knew they were acting legally and in compliance. They were the third step in the line and not directly importing.

Ignorance of the law is no defense.

Ignorance of the law is no defense.

I agree with that. In this case what doesn't make sense is that there is no admission from the government that the wood was illegal. They use the term "may" which has no legal standing inside a courtroom. All of this took place outside a courtroom. It was a forced settlement. If they didn't then they had to close the doors. That doesn't make it right for the government to do that on the chance it may be illegal. If that were the case then anything and everything is subject to confiscation on the premise it may become or may be used in illegal activity.

You guys want all those illegals breaking the law by sneaking in to not only get a pass, but flood them with government benefits my disabled daughter can't get then have the audacity to preach to me about the law.

Again, why was Gibson's competitor given a pass for doing the same thing?

So much for the few rogue Cincinnati agents defense. What was claimed last week is now hard copy proof in NBC's hands.


IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show (http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/28/18563008-irs-higher-ups-requested-info-on-conservative-groups-letters-show?lite)

Additional scrutiny of conservative organizations’ activities by the IRS did not solely originate in the agency’s Cincinnati office, with requests for information coming from other offices and often bearing the signatures of higher-ups at the agency, according to attorneys representing some of the targeted groups. At least one letter requesting information about one of the groups bears the signature of Lois Lerner, the suspended director of the IRS Exempt Organizations department in Washington.

One of their 10 clients that still have not received a determination got another request for more information this month - they've been pursuing the exemption for at least 2 years according to a date in the letter.

Nice try but the spin of the lawyers for their client is hardly objective. Federalcourt sounds like a good place to get some facts, despite the one way spin.

Nice try but the spin of the lawyers for their client is hardly objective. federalcourt sounds like a good place to get some facts, despite the one way spin.

?? I don't believe you actually read anything, you just have that one knee jerk answer for everything. There is absolutely ZERO spin in my post, just FACTS.

Nice try but the spin of the lawyers for their client is hardly objective. federalcourt sounds like a good place to get some facts, despite the one way spin.

So you agree there should be a special prosecutor assigned to empanel a Grand Jury.

I prefer a court battle.

I prefer a court battle.

You guys just want it to drag out and siappear in the Twitter universe until after the election. You know this is bad.

Hello again, tom:


so you agree there should be a special prosecutor assigned to empanel a Grand Jury.First off, you should probably find somebody who actually did some "targeting". As we've discovered, NOBODY "targeted" anybody. That's YOUR word.

Show me a crime, and I'll back the appointment of a special prosecutor... But, all I see is BUNGLING!!

You don't help your cause when every Tom, D*ck and right wing Harry COMPLAIN that they were TARGETED because the IRS audited them... But, that's what you guys a doing...

Excon

Hello again, tom:

First off, you should probably find somebody who actually did some "targeting". As we've discovered, NOBODY "targeted" anybody. That's YOUR word.

Show me a crime, and I'll back the appointment of a special prosecutor... But, all I see is BUNGLING!!!

You don't help your cause when every Tom, D*ck and right wing Harry COMPLAIN that they were TARGETED because the IRS audited them... But, that's what you guys a doing...

excon

You wake up in a new world every day, eh? Not me, I both know the facts and have proven your spin to be the nonsense it is (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/irs-scandal-749229-18.html#post3470492).

Hello again, Steve:


I both know the facts and have proven your spin to be the nonsense it is.BOLO is NOT evidence of criminal conduct..

Look.. I HATE government.. If Obama is the crook you say he is, then I want him Out of there too. I just need a little bit of proof first.. A little bit will do. I'm easy that way.. But, right wing speculation and rancor AIN'T proof..

Excon

Keep deluding yourself, ex. Just keep deluding yourself, you apparently drank the koolaid.

Hello again, Steve:

I don't know.. If there WAS proof, you wouldn't HIDE it from me, would you? Look.. I just need a tad.. A little bit. I don't need much.

But, I need SOME. That IS how it works here in this great country of ours, isn't it?

excon

Hello again, Steve:

I dunno.. If there WAS proof, you wouldn't HIDE it from me, would you? Look.. I just need a tad.. A little bit. I don't need much.

But, I need SOME. That IS how it works here in this great country of ours, isn't it??

excon

Dude, you're the one hung up on a word, the PROOF is in the OP. The PROOF is what started this whole mess. ADMISSION of wrongdoing should be all the PROOF you need to be sufficiently pi$$ed.

Hello again, Steve:


The PROOF is what started this whole mess. ADMISSION of wrongdoing should be all the PROOF you need to be sufficiently pi$$ed.That the dingy broad Lois Lerner admitted something, and then pleads the 5th, isn't proof to me.

(1) Find the crime.
(2) Find the guy who DID it.
(3) Find the guy who ORDERED it.

You got NONE of that. That would be ZERO, NADA, ZILCH. Come back when you do.

Excon

PS> I've copied this post to use on your Benghazi and AP threads if needed.

They copy and paste on the right too Ex,

Its Obama's fault... fill in conspiracy theory... Impeach him.

Show me a crime, and I'll back the appointment of a special prosecutor...
excon

Uhh that didn't stop anyone from appointing a prosecutor when a reporter revealed a well know fact about Valerie Plame.

Hello again, Steve:

That the dingy broad Lois Lerner admitted something, and then pleads the 5th, isn't proof to me.

(1) Find the crime.
(2) Find the guy who DID it.
(3) Find the guy who ORDERED it.

You got NONE of that. That would be ZERO, NADA, ZILCH. Come back when you do.

excon

PS> I've copied this post to use on your Benghazi and AP threads if needed.

Yeah, well I hope you aren't next to feel the weight of the IRS bulldozing through your life. See unlike you I see a real, serious problem here that's as plain as the boobs that used to be on Angelina Jolie's chest.