[tomder55]

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.

[speechlesstx]

While you lefties are still arguing this is Congress' fault and/or ignoring the plain fact of the law, Pelosi adds another passing excuse to relieve Obama from any responsibility in this, beyond the other excuse of Shulman being a Bush appointee (and DNC donor). 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.

[Wondergirl]

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).

[tomder55]

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.

[excon]

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

[Wondergirl]

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

[talaniman]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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.

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.

[speechlesstx]

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.

[Wondergirl]

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

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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?

[tomder55]

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 .

[speechlesstx]

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, until then all we got is some left-wing gums flappin'.

[talaniman]

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.

[Wondergirl]

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?

[speechlesstx]

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.

[excon]

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

[tomder55]

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/auditr...01310053fr.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.

[excon]

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