Ask Me Help Desk - The IRS scandal

I'm after the truth ,but not at the expense of letting the bad actors off the hook.

The only reason the TP groups are getting their status restored is because the IRS is running scared over what is going to happen when the truth is revealed. It's too late for the 2012 elections ...the damage is already done... the emperor's regime restored.
But ,the nation cannot allow such extensive abuse of powers to go unpunished. If it was your side that was the victim ,you'd be howling about it and demanding the same extensive investigation we are.

Hello again, tom:

Quote:

If it was your side that was the victim ,you'd be howling about it

SIDE??? I'm a taxpayer... THAT'S who's side I'm on.

I'm a businessman. I'm ALSO a politically active liberal. I've been audited MANY times over the years. It started under Republican H.W. Bush. I asked them WHY I was being audited. They didn't tell me. I suppose I COULD say I was a victim - that I was targeted... But, I'm not into fantasy.

What you wingers are calling "targeting", is the IRS simply auditing tax returns, which is what it does. Lois Lerner will say NOTHING other than that.

excon

no it isn't ;it is denying them due process by denying them certification just because they have a different political position than the emperor. As a business man you could still conduct your business ...right ? These groups were denied their right to conduct their business .

Hello again, tom:

Quote:

These groups were denied their right to conduct their business .

Nahhh... They were audited.. When the audit was complete, and they proved what they were claiming, they were given their exemption.. In fact, the only group to be DENIED its tax exemption, was a LIBERAL group.

excon

Not only are they still not allowing these groups to conduct "business," they've formalized the abuse as I noted before.

Quote:

About a month after the IRS inspector general released his bombshell report about IRS targeting of conservative groups last May, Acting IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel unveiled a "plan of action" for correcting the mess. One highlight was that targeted groups would be offered a new optional "expedited" process for getting 501(c)(4) status.

The deal, which received little public attention, boiled down to this: We'll do our job, the IRS said, if you give up your rights. Those taking part in the "expedited" process had to agree to limit to 40% the amount of spending and time (calculated by employee and volunteers hours) they spend on political activity. Current 501(c)(4) rules allow political spending up to 49%, and have no "time" component. The clear point of the "deal" was to use the lure of 501(c)(4) approval to significantly reduce the political activity of targeted conservative groups going forward.

Where is their authority hold people hostage to such "deals"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:
Nahhh... They were audited.. When the audit was complete, and they proved what they were claiming, they were given their exemption.. In fact, the only group to be DENIED its tax exemption, was a LIBERAL group.

excon

Oh yeah, they 'targeted' a whopping 3 liberal groups I believe while around 500 conservative groups were targeted, some of which STILL have not received an answer after even more scrutiny . And don't forget, this all began with Lerner apologizing for targeting conservatives so spare me the bullsh*t.

No it started with the money flooding the campaigns of politician which have been a problem a long time. No body wants to put their name on it either.

I'll give you a name . George Soros.

Hello again,

I dunno the FULL story, (I'm watching it now) but your crack investigator BLEW it once again.. Lois Lerner IS pleading the 5th. Who, other than your crack investigator, thought she wouldn't??

Then Issa and the Republicans walked out...

Watch this space...

excon

Yep, she did it again then Elijah Cummins blew a gasket and called Issa "un-American," which obviously is the liberal meme of the week. Obviously there isn't even a "smidgeon" of corruption involved.

Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

Obviously there isn't even a "smidgeon" of corruption involved.

Again, IF my president is corrupt, I want him IMPEACHED.

Look.. If you're NOT embarrassed by Issa, I'm embarrassed FOR you. This was SUPPOSED to be the big reveal.. IT was SUPPOSED to be Issa's BIG gotcha moment.. He SUPPOSEDLY KNEW that she was GOING to testify.. He SUPPOSEDLY was IN communication with her lawyer...

NONE of that happened.. Issa fell FLAT on his face....

IF there ever WAS a smidgeon of corruption involved, Issa BLEW his chance to find out. Now, we'll NEVER know if Obama is a crook or not.

Is that gonna STOP you from asserting he is???? Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

Shame we took a year to arrive at the same place as we were. Wonder who pays for this waste of time?

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:
Again, IF my president is corrupt, I want him IMPEACHED.

Look.. If you're NOT embarrassed by Issa, I'm embarrassed FOR you. This was SUPPOSED to be the big reveal.. IT was SUPPOSED to be Issa's BIG gotcha moment.. He SUPPOSEDLY KNEW that she was GOING to testify.. He SUPPOSEDLY was IN communication with her lawyer...

NONE of that happened.. Issa fell FLAT on his face....

IF there ever WAS a smidgeon of corruption involved, Issa BLEW his chance to find out. Now, we'll NEVER know if Obama is a crook or not.

Is that gonna STOP you from asserting he is???? Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

Yes obviously you wanna know. I refer you back to this post of tom's.

Well storming out of the hearing didn't get us closer to anything.

Storming out? The only one who didn't remain calm and in control was Cummins. It ain't over, this email from Lerner was tweeted by Greta today, "Tea Party Matter very dangerous":

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bh-SgQMCYAAzC6m.png:large

Obama takes a swipe at SCOTUS over Citizens United, the IRS ADMITTEDLY targeted TP groups "inappropriately" and then Lerner is warning about legal implications?

Nah, nothing remotely fishy here.

Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

I refer you back to this post of tom's.

Yeah, I saw that post. I didn't comment on it then, or maybe I did. Nonetheless, the claim is patently WRONG. Even on a cursory view, it falls flat. Think about it.

The fact IS, you can claim your 5th amendment rights on a question by question basis. Otherwise you would have to refuse to give your name in case a question far down the line might incriminate you. You cannot be expected to predict what questions you might be asked, which might require you to claim the fifth.

excon

Dershowitz: IRS official Lerner 'can be held in contempt' of Congress | TheHill

Hello again, tom:

I did NOT say she couldn't be held in contempt. I simply said that opening your mouth ONCE does NOT mean you waived your 5th Amendment rights...

IF she's held in contempt, the issue will swirl around whether making an opening statement is "shutting off the spigot". Issa will LOSE again. You simply CANNOT be compelled to be a witness against yourself. Nothing could be clearer. Does it bother me that Dershowitz disagrees with me? Nahhh.

Look... I dunno WHAT'S so damn important about making SURE Lois Lerner goes to the slam... REALLY... You're DOING this to get to Obama, aren't you??? NOBODY wants Lois Lerner... You want the BIG cheese. How come Issa WON'T give her immunity??? HOW COME???

excon

Here's my issue . I have a major problem with using the regulatory and enforcement branches of goverment to stifle political opposition. You should be outraged too .

Hello again, tom:

Quote:

I have a major problem with using the regulatory and enforcement branches of goverment to stifle political opposition.You should be outraged too .

I AM. But, Lois Lerner HAS NO political opposition. She's a bureaucrat. IF the president ORDERED her to do it, like you're suggesting, I'd want to KNOW. But, until there's a smoking gun, I DON'T know. You DON'T either. Until I DO, I refrain from flapping my gums about it. You guys? Not so much.

excon

Your argument is flawed, we're not flapping our gums about getting to Obama - you are. We're "flapping our gums" about a federal agency abusing its power to silence one side. They are STILL doing so as I pointed out the other day. I want it stopped, and I would want it stopped if the shoe were on the other foot. You, not so much apparently.

Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

They are STILL doing so as I pointed out the other day.

In this great nation of ours, we have this thing called CHECKS and BALANCES... It's REAL important stuff. EVERY American is invested in it. Without it, we turn into a DICTATORSHIP... UNFORTUNATELY, that power is vested into the Republican House of Representatives, and falls to the House Oversight Committee, chaired by Republican Daryl Issa...

If that ONE guy is a DUFUS, we ALL lose. And, he's a dufus of the highest order.

So, I ask you, Steve, if they're STILL doing it, where is the COP on the BEAT???? Why isn't HE stopping it? Don't TELL me he needs Obama's permission, or Eric Holder won't act right, so the IRS can get away with anything...

Nahhh... ISSA is the COP on the BEAT, and if the IRS is doing stuff, HE'S the guy who's letting 'em.

So, let me say this again, for the 1,000th time. If my president is a CROOK, I want him OUT OF THERE. If the IRS is DOING what you say they're DOING, I want them OUT OF THERE.

Why is Issa letting 'em get away with it????

excon

Hello again,

Since the blowup yesterday, and my BLASTING Issa, I've heard NOTHING from our resident right wingers... Is it because I'm SOOO off base that you can't find the words? Or, is it because I'm right on, and you, like me, feel cheated by the committee??

excon

I want Issa to get tougher, but I'm willing to wait a bit and see what happens. I know there's a problem, Lerner ADMITTED and apologized for it and I know the IRS is STILL doing it. Do you want it stopped, or is all you and Cummins worried about is does it go to the president?

Or like Debbie the liar do you believe it's SETTLED and Lerner LOST her job over it? Lerner RETIRED and not one person has been held to account.

I think Issa isn't getting tougher because Speaker Bonehead won't give him the marching orders to do so (He likes the fact that the TP was targetted too).
But why doesn't the emperor announce publically that he will not tolerate a cover-up of the scandal like Reagan did during Iran-Contra ? Why doesn't he insist that he will not tolerate anyone obstructing the Congressional and FBI investigation like GW Bush did during Plamegate ? Why doesn't he tell Louis Lerner that she should NOT take the 5th to cover for anyone other than herself. Why doesn't the adm release the documents that House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp has requested ? Why doesn't the emperor direct his White House to cooperate ? If it was just "boneheaded decisions " without a "smidgeon of corruption " as the emperor contends ;then why does his adm stonewall ? Why did Lerner plea the 5th twice (the 2nd time after assuring Issa that she would testify) . I'd NEVER give her immunity after yesterday's stunt. There is no way that anyone above her would be held responsible . All she'd have to say is ;'yeah it was my idea ....I thought of the plan and directed it myself.' No one believes that. Come to think of it ;her silence is more reminiscences of the Mafia omerta as they took the 5th during Congressional investigations .

Why, Why, Why, Obama? you sound like Tom Jones, Why Why Why Obama?

Meanwhile...

Cynical Dems kill bill prohibiting IRS political favoritism - Liberty Unyielding

Chairman Darrell Issa has released seven questions Lerner has refused to answer.

1. In October 2010, Lerner told a Duke University group: “The Supreme Court dealt a huge blow, overturning a 100-year-old precedent that basically corporations couldn't give directly to political campaigns. And everyone is up in arms because they don't like it. The Federal Election Commission can't do anything about it. They want the IRS to fix the problem.”

Who exactly wanted the IRS to “fix the problem” caused by Citizens United?

2. In February 2011, Lerner e-mailed her colleagues in the IRS: “Tea Party Matter very dangerous. This could be the vehicle to go to court on the issue of whether Citizens United overturning the ban on corporate spending applies to tax-exempt rules. Counsel and Judy Kindell need to be in on this one please. Cincy should probably NOT have these cases.”

Why did Lerner think the Tea Party cases were “very dangerous”?

3. In September 2010, Lerner e-mailed subordinates about initiating a “c4 project,” but wrote: “we need to be cautious so it isn't a per se political project.”

Why was Lerner worried about this being perceived as a political project?

4. Michael Seto, manager of EO Technical in Washington, testified that you ordered Tea Party cases to undergo a “multi-tier review.” He testified: “[Lerner] sent me email saying that when these cases need to go through multi-tier review and they will eventually have to go to Miss Kindell and the chief counsel's office.”

Why did Lerner order the Tea Party cases to undergo a “multi-tier review”?

5. In June 2011, Lerner requested that Holly Paz obtain a copy of the tax-exempt application filed by Crossroads GPS so that her senior technical advisor, Judy Kindell, could review it and summarize the issues for Lerner.

Why did Lerner want to have the Crossroads GPS application?

6. In June 2012, Lerner was part of an e-mail exchange about writing new regulations on political speech for 501(c)(4) groups “off-plan” in 2013.

Doesn't this “off-plan” effort from 2012 contradict Administration assertions that new regulations were written in response to the 2013 TIGTA report?

7. In February 2014, President Obama stated that there was not a “smidgeon of corruption” in the IRS targeting.

If this is true, why do House Democrats believe that Lois Lerner has a well-founded fear of criminal prosecution that allows her to claim the Fifth Amendment in refusing to testify?

Maybe we could have gotten closer to the answers if Issa had allowed questions from somebody other than himself.

Maybe if she spends some time sitting in a jail cell we'll get those answers too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Maybe we could have gotten closer to the answers if Issa had allowed questions from somebody other than himself.

So she would have unplead the 5th for Cummings?

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Maybe we could have gotten closer to the answers if Issa had allowed questions from somebody other than himself.

Why ? You think that she suddenly would've waived the 5th ? I don't think so. Cummings didn't want to ask questions .He wanted to pontificate ....and in a way ,he succeeded in deflecting the compliant media's attention to the " injustice " of having his mike shut off .

That's Issa's story straight from Fox and his interviews. You can be partisan in your thinking but to say he can censor his own committee is against the rules of procedure in the house and deplorable. By rule once he was recognized Cummings had 5 minutes to state his question his way. Everyone on the committee has, even fellow republican members.

It's a committee hearing not a show for one member. I mean Issa took his turn didn't he?

Barney Brings Down the Gavel - YouTube

At least Barney Frank takes time to explain why the dumb questions are rejected, unlike the blatant attempts at censorship by Issa.

well when Cummings has the gavel ,he can bang it . Isn't that what you always tell us .It's all about the raw power of having the majority ? Cummings had nothing to contribute except to assist in the stonewall. In a way he succeeded because all the compliant press (the 5th column .... oops I mean the 4th estate which has been asleep at the wheel for the last 5 years ) has reported is about the poor "racist " treatment of Cummings .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

well when Cummings has the gavel ,he can bang it . Isn't that what you always tell us .It's all about the raw power of having the majority ? Cummings had nothing to contribute except to assist in the stonewall. In a way he succeeded because all the compliant press (the 5th column .... oops I mean the 4th estate which has been asleep at the wheel for the last 5 years ) has reported is about the poor "racist " treatment of Cummings .

Rep. Cummings got the twofer when Rep. Issa recognized him. He either got to pontificate for 5 minutes, abusing the rules, or he got to distract from Lerner not answering again by arranging to be treated the way Waxman treated Issa.

yeah forgot about that ..the time Waxman threatened to have Issa physically removed from a hearing .

So Issa has been a boob for a long time huh?

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

So Issa has been a boob for a long time huh?

Deflecting from your own point. Issa didn't have the right to speak while the hearing was open but Cummings did after adjournment? That's some warped logic.