Chongara wrote: The IRS aiming increased scrutiny at groups that constantly voice loud opinions about the evil of taxes, and even talk about how not paying taxes would actually be "Patriotic"? No. I just can't believe it. That it might be suspect that entities with members that make it really clear they'd like to get around taxes at any cost... might be... abusing tax exemption provisions?! I...I...I... just, that's so unreasonable. My world.. it's.. falling apart.... it makes no sense....
I don't understand how an organization responsible for collecting taxes, would give more attention to groups that loudly and proudly talk about how they try to avoid paying taxes. My mind is blown.
Chongara wrote: The IRS aiming increased scrutiny at groups that constantly voice loud opinions about the evil of taxes, and even talk about how not paying taxes would actually be "Patriotic"? No. I just can't believe it. That it might be suspect that entities with members that make it really clear they'd like to get around taxes at any cost... might be... abusing tax exemption provisions?! I...I...I... just, that's so unreasonable. My world.. it's.. falling apart.... it makes no sense....
I don't understand how an organization responsible for collecting taxes, would give more attention to groups that loudly and proudly talk about how they try to avoid paying taxes. My mind is blown.
^ That.
So... when IRS apologized for doing that... and Obama himself said that it was unacceptable... they were wrong?
If the IRS wanted to investigate these groups using a more appropriate methodology, people wouldn't mind. The problem was the arbitrary list of terms. If they want to use reasonable evidence based criteria for scrutiny, then fine.
I don't like the tea party at all, but this methodology was not appropriate.
And that's why it doesn't make it all better because they were targeting occupy as well. Name based criteria for scrutiny isn't good and it's obviously against their own rules.
Rented Tritium wrote: If the IRS wanted to investigate these groups using a more appropriate methodology, people wouldn't mind. The problem was the arbitrary list of terms. If they want to use reasonable evidence based criteria for scrutiny, then fine.
I don't like the tea party at all, but this methodology was not appropriate.
And that's why it doesn't make it all better because they were targeting occupy as well. Name based criteria for scrutiny isn't good and it's obviously against their own rules.
whembly wrote: So... when IRS apologized for doing that... and Obama himself said that it was unacceptable... they were wrong?
o.O
#mindblown
I know, I'm getting a sense of deja vu. It's almost as if we've covered this ground already.
Rented Tritium wrote: If the IRS wanted to investigate these groups using a more appropriate methodology, people wouldn't mind. The problem was the arbitrary list of terms. If they want to use reasonable evidence based criteria for scrutiny, then fine.
I don't like the tea party at all, but this methodology was not appropriate.
And that's why it doesn't make it all better because they were targeting occupy as well. Name based criteria for scrutiny isn't good and it's obviously against their own rules.
Several congressmen, including Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., are requesting documents from the IRS relating to this new testimony. "As a part of this ongoing investigation, the Committees have learned that the IRS Chief Counsel's office in Washington, D.C. has been closely involved in some of the applications," Issa and others wrote in a letter to acting IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel. "Its involvement and demands for information about political activity during the 2010 election cycle appears to have caused systematic delays in the processing of Tea Party applications."
Even if that is the case, the actions of the IRS would still be legal.
...
Ms. O'Donnell said she has reason to believe her political opponents were behind the scheme.
“An official with this investigation told me that there was evidence linking this inappropriate use of my tax records with the Delaware political leadership, Delaware political leaders on both sides of the aisle,” she said, though she declined to identify the official with whom she spoke.
Well, it is Christine O'Donnell...so I'm going to take a pass on believing that story.
If it is true then yes, it absolutely was illegal.
Several congressmen, including Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., are requesting documents from the IRS relating to this new testimony. "As a part of this ongoing investigation, the Committees have learned that the IRS Chief Counsel's office in Washington, D.C. has been closely involved in some of the applications," Issa and others wrote in a letter to acting IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel. "Its involvement and demands for information about political activity during the 2010 election cycle appears to have caused systematic delays in the processing of Tea Party applications."
Even if that is the case, the actions of the IRS would still be legal.
But wrong, right? What about the Hatch Act, which prevents civil servants from engaging in partisan political activity?
... Ms. O'Donnell said she has reason to believe her political opponents were behind the scheme.
“An official with this investigation told me that there was evidence linking this inappropriate use of my tax records with the Delaware political leadership, Delaware political leaders on both sides of the aisle,” she said, though she declined to identify the official with whom she spoke.
Well, it is Christine O'Donnell...so I'm going to take a pass on believing that story.
If it is true then yes, it absolutely was illegal.
Yup... it happened. She even named names. I mean, if she just said "IRS is unfairly targeting me"... that's one thing. But, when she actual named the IRS personell? That gives a little bit more credibility.
I have many complicated opinions regarding the NPO segment of the tax code. But, in general, I think that any corporation which defines itself in an explicitly political manner should be singled out for additional review.
Yup... it happened. She even named names. I mean, if she just said "IRS is unfairly targeting me"... that's one thing. But, when she actual named the IRS personell? That gives a little bit more credibility.
Still needs to be investigated.
Well, no, it didn't happen. The story you quoted did not indicate that O'Donnell's tax information was illegally leaked, only that it may have been illegally requested by the IRS.
I have many complicated opinions regarding the NPO segment of the tax code. But, in general, I think that any corporation which defines itself in an explicitly political manner should be singled out for additional review.
And that's fair.
I'm wondering if all of this treads dangerously close to the Hatch Act.
Yup... it happened. She even named names. I mean, if she just said "IRS is unfairly targeting me"... that's one thing. But, when she actual named the IRS personell? That gives a little bit more credibility.
Still needs to be investigated.
Well, no, it didn't happen. The story you quoted did not indicate that O'Donnell's tax information was illegally leaked, only that it may have been illegally requested by the IRS.
Eh... not quite dude... it really was an official in Delaware state government (translated: Democratic operative) had improperly accessed her records on that very same day she announced her Senatorial candidancy.
Eh... not quite dude... it really was an official in Delaware state government (translated: Democratic operative) had improperly accessed her records on that very same day she announced her Senatorial candidancy.
Well, that isn't judgmental at all. Nor was said judgment made on the basis of tenuous evidence.
If someone did improperly access her records it was not, by necessity, a member of the larger Democratic Party.
And it certainly wasn't, by necessity, an operative of such.
whembly wrote: So... when IRS apologized for doing that... and Obama himself said that it was unacceptable... they were wrong?
o.O
#mindblown
Wrong? No, it's just part of this whole stupid game of addressing the latest conservative-outrage-du-jour with placatory language.
I don't find a damn thing wrong - at worst, I see this targetting of specific names as profiling, which can be unfortunate but in this case seems entirely appropriate in light of the highly destructive nature of the Tea Party backers' agenda (my own partisan opinion, obviously, but F* 'em.)
Cry moar. When what I assume is your preferred party retakes the WH, I'll be ready for them to do their own profiling. The wheel turns....
Cry moar. When what I assume is your preferred party retakes the WH, I'll be ready for them to do their own profiling. The wheel turns....
And if that happens.. .I'll be bitching just as loudly.
EDIT: This is why it's getting a bit stuffy now... the bombshell:
The IRS scandal was connected this week not just to the Washington office—that had been established—but to the office of the chief counsel.
That is a bombshell—such a big one that it managed to emerge in spite of an unfocused, frequently off-point congressional hearing in which some members seemed to have accidentally woken up in the middle of a committee room, some seemed unaware of the implications of what their investigators had uncovered, one pretended that the investigation should end if IRS workers couldn’t say the president had personally called and told them to harass his foes, and one seemed to be holding a filibuster on Pakistan.
Still, what landed was a bombshell. And Democrats know it. Which is why they are so desperate to make the investigation go away. They know, as Republicans do, that the chief counsel of the IRS is one of only two Obama political appointees in the entire agency.
Of course it does. If I was working for the administration, I would be trying to do the exact same thing. Make the message about the topic you can stay on top of.
Its typical though. Instead of saying we need to use this as an excuse to come together blah blah its I could have been TM and we need to use this as an excuse to overcome proven laws and blah blah.
Frazzled wrote:Its typical though. Instead of saying we need to use this as an excuse to come together blah blah its I could have been TM and we need to use this as an excuse to overcome proven laws and blah blah.
uniter my ass.
"Proven laws" is quite nebulous, and using Zimmerman's very-easy-to-predict "not guilty" verdict to justify the law is a circular argument. SYG is a terrible law, in that it has an excellent intention behind it but abysmally generalized wording.
Frazzled wrote:Its typical though. Instead of saying we need to use this as an excuse to come together blah blah its I could have been TM and we need to use this as an excuse to overcome proven laws and blah blah.
uniter my ass.
"Proven laws" is quite nebulous, and using Zimmerman's very-easy-to-predict "not guilty" verdict to justify the law is a circular argument. SYG is a terrible law, in that it has an excellent intention behind it but abysmally generalized wording.
And what part of the wording of the Florida law do you not like?
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.
776.031 Use of force in defense of others.—A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1189, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 2005-27.
On Monday, we learned that the IRS didn't single out tea party groups after all. Instead, they were looking for political groups, including not just tea party groups, but progressive groups as well. They may have used a flawed method for flagging the groups, but the IRS's intent was clear: to identify political groups that were not legally entitled to receive the tax-exempt benefit they sought to receive.
That pretty much brought the IRS "scandal" to a screeching halt. In the hours following the revelation, Darrell Issa's Twitter feed suddenly started spamming tweets about Benghazi. "Change the subject, quickly!" he seemed to be saying.
But there's still a question to be answered. If the IRS was targeting political groups from across the ideological spectrum, where did the original narrative about tea party targeting come from? The answer makes Darrell Issa and his fellow House Republicans look even worse than they did on Monday:
The Treasury inspector general (IG) whose report helped drive the IRS targeting controversy says it limited its examination to conservative groups because of a request from House Republicans.
A spokesman for Russell George, Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, said they were asked by House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) “to narrowly focus on Tea Party organizations.”
Obviously, if Issa wanted a comprehensive investigation, he should have asked for a review of all politically oriented scrutiny. Instead, he asked for exclusive focus on tea party and conservative groups. Under the most charitable interpretation of this, it never occurred to Darrell Issa that anyone other than the tea party groups could have been targeted. If that's true, it suggests he just doesn't care about whether the IRS "targets" anyone other than his political allies.
But I think the most likely explanation here is that Issa was simply trying to cook up a scandal, even though it did nothing to address the genuine problems with the way campaign finance and tax laws are written. He probably figured that in the best case scenario, he'd be able to get away with his fraud. And in the worst case scenario, he'd get a slap on the wrist from a few reporters, but endless approval from his political supporters. It's exactly the kind of thing you'd expect from Mr. Grand Theft Auto.
Now, I'd like to hear from Whembly about how the IRS still did something illegal, simply on the basis of someone issuing a knee-jerk apology to placate the howling jackals.
Now, I'd like to hear from Whembly about how the IRS still did something illegal, simply on the basis of someone issuing a knee-jerk apology to placate the howling jackals.
Does he get to use the Townhall/Big Government article in rebuttal of the DailyKos piece to rebut the DailyKos piece?
Because nothing in there supports the idea that anyone in the IRS, or the IRS itself, did anything illegal with regard to targeting any particular group.
Rather, it indicates that the IRS targeted 501(c)(3)s and 501(c)(4)s which appeared to be political in nature*. It further indicates that conservative groups were accorded scrutiny which was not applied to liberal groups, and that it was probably politically motivated. I think both of these points are spot on.
Unfortunately it really doesn't matter because the IRS is not legally prohibited from applying that sort of scrutiny to applications for NPO status. Congressional Republicans, instead of addressing the root issue (the poorly written NPO segment of the tax code) have chosen to engage in a political witch hunt; thereby forcing Congressional Democrats to act defensively. Obviously this is the rational choice as it will see them reelected, while legislative action will not.
Now, I'd like to hear from Whembly about how the IRS still did something illegal, simply on the basis of someone issuing a knee-jerk apology to placate the howling jackals.
Because nothing in there supports the idea that anyone in the IRS, or the IRS itself, did anything illegal with regard to targeting any particular group.
Rather, it indicates that the IRS targeted 501(c)(3)s and 501(c)(4)s which appeared to be political in nature*. It further indicates that conservative groups were accorded scrutiny which was not applied to liberal groups, and that it was probably politically motivated. I think both of these points are spot on.
Unfortunately it really doesn't matter because the IRS is not legally prohibited from applying that sort of scrutiny to applications for NPO status. Congressional Republicans, instead of addressing the root issue (the poorly written NPO segment of the tax code) have chosen to engage in a political witch hunt; thereby forcing Congressional Democrats to act defensively. Obviously this is the rational choice as it will see them reelected, while legislative action will not.
So your argument has now changed from a massive illegal conspiracy, to a moral argument of "it's not fair", then?
Naw... while I think what they did remains legal in a technical sense (unless, it somehow falls under the Hatch Act or Equal Protection clause).
I think it certainly warrants accountability politically. That is, folks get removed / voted out for perpetuating this.
I really don't believe anything criminal will come out of this.
IF this current scandal get Congress / Executive branch off their tush and change the laws governing these tax laws, then I'd be happy. Simply put, giving the IRS this sort of discetionary power/review... you're opening yourself to these sorts of activities.
For what it's worth, if this was a Republican administration doing the same sort of things for groups like Progressive for America (and quickly approving Tea parties). I'd be barking just as loud as I am now.
It was a conservative initiated investigation that was ordered to only look for targeting of conservative groups. Instead of an IRS witchhunt of conservative groups it turns out that it was a political crisis that was orchestrated by conservatives so that they could play the victim.
How dare the IRS investigate political groups on both sides of the political spectrum to make sure that they complied with the laws covering the status that they applied for.
Isn't... isn't that what they're supposed to be doing.
Like, groups apply for a particular status, and someone checks to see if they should get it?
The fact someone was trying to streamline the system with keyword searches may not be great optics, but haven't applications since Citizens United jumped some massive amount?
I'm with d-usa; a non or minor issue but suddenly someone saw the word Tea Party and OMG PERSECUTION!
Naw... while I think what they did remains legal in a technical sense (unless, it somehow falls under the Hatch Act or Equal Protection clause).
The Hatch Act would be a stretch as it would have be shown that a particular federal employee deliberately acted to interfere with an election or otherwise engaged in political activity while acting as a member of the IRS. The exception to this would be if someone from the Office of Criminal Investigation was involved, which seems highly unlikely.
The Equal Protection clause isn't relevant at all.
IF this current scandal get Congress / Executive branch off their tush and change the laws governing these tax laws, then I'd be happy. Simply put, giving the IRS this sort of discetionary power/review... you're opening yourself to these sorts of activities.
...from happening. Which is, of course, what Congress wants because any legislative action to alter the NPO segment of the tax code will get absolutely nowhere. Moreover, the Citizen's United ruling essentially guarantees that the law regarding the political activity of 501(c)(3)s and 501(c)(4)s will eventually come before the Supreme Court, and be subsequently declared Unconstitutional.
Naw... while I think what they did remains legal in a technical sense (unless, it somehow falls under the Hatch Act or Equal Protection clause).
The Hatch Act would be a stretch as it would have be shown that a particular federal employee deliberately acted to interfere with an election or otherwise engaged in political activity while acting as a member of the IRS. The exception to this would be if someone from the Office of Criminal Investigation was involved, which seems highly unlikely.
"engaged in political activity"... keep that in mind.
The Obama appointee implicated in congressional testimony in the IRS targeting scandal met with President Obama in the White House two days before offering his colleagues a new set of advice on how to scrutinize tea party and conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status.
IRS chief counsel William Wilkins, who was named in House Oversight testimony by retiring IRS agent Carter Hull as one of his supervisors in the improper targeting of conservative groups, met with Obama in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on April 23, 2012. Wilkins’ boss, then-IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman, visited the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on April 24, 2012, according to White House visitor logs.
On April 25, 2012, Wilkins’ office sent the exempt organizations determinations unit “additional comments on the draft guidance” for approving or denying tea party tax-exempt applications, according to the IRS inspector general’s report.
Between 2010 and 2012, the IRS sent letters demanding groups’ training materials, personal information on groups’ donors and college interns, and even the content of a religious group’s prayers.
Wilkins’ meeting with Obama on April 23 was attended by 13 people.
Wilkins, who is one of only two Obama appointees at the IRS, is a former lobbyist with the firm WilmerHale, where he spent his time “counseling nonprofit organizations, business entities, and investment funds on tax compliance, business transactions, and government investigations.” At the firm, Wilkins defended Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Chicago-based United Church of Christ from a 2008 investigation into whether Wright violated his church’s nonprofit status by speaking in favor of Obama. Wilkins successfully defended Wright’s church pro bono.
The White House did not return a request for comment.
Now we don't know exactly what was discussed on those days (notice the date in orange). But, two things:
1) Why is a Counsel for the IRS meeting with the President? Shouldn't he be reporting to his direct superiors? It's just odd... maybe nothing there.
2) The timing is what gets me... this is during the re-election season.
I am reprinting (with permission) an email I received today from an attorney in the general counsel's office of a federal agency (not the IRS) concerning reports of IRS Chief Counsel William Wilkins' meeting with President Obama in the White House two days before providing guidance to IRS personnel on handling tax-exempt applications from Tea Party and other conservative groups:
As someone who works as an attorney at an agency general counsel's office, I think people are missing the significance of Obama meeting with the IRS chief counsel in the White House. Understand, agency general counsels are not authorized to give legal advice to the President. They advise their agency heads. Only the AG and by delegation the Office of Legal Counsel to the President is authorized to give legal advice to the President. In my seven years of working at a General Counsel's office, I have never once heard of our general counsel meeting with the President. OLC would go crazy if he did. I have worked on a couple of legal opinions that did go to the White House. And each time they were staffed through OLC. Nothing went to the President that wasn't signed off on by OLC and delivered to him by OLC.
So I can't for the life of me come up with any kind of innocent explanation for why Obama would have met with the Chief Counsel of the IRS. That meeting shouldn't ever happen, and especially not without the Commissioner of the IRS being there. Presidents just don't go to agency chief counsels with legal questions. Presidents don't go to anyone with legal questions. Their staff does. The idea that the President would sit down with some random agency chief counsel and discuss some pressing legal issue is just bizarre to anyone who has worked in the legal field at that level. I am not sure the reporters covering this story understand how legal advice is actually delivered to the President and just how out of the ordinary that meeting was.
You remember back when this broke, I was actually defending the administration against the suggestion that this guy must have taken orders straight from Obama because why would some random counsel meet with Obama, right?
Rented Tritium wrote: You remember back when this broke, I was actually defending the administration against the suggestion that this guy must have taken orders straight from Obama because why would some random counsel meet with Obama, right?
Rented Tritium wrote: You remember back when this broke, I was actually defending the administration against the suggestion that this guy must have taken orders straight from Obama because why would some random counsel meet with Obama, right?
Right... and?
It's just interesting. It was reasonable before to say "this argument that there's some vast conspiracy isn't meaningful because it's not like a random counsel would ever meet with the president", but then it turns out that he did, unexpectedly, outside of all expectation and reason. Wut?
Rented Tritium wrote: You remember back when this broke, I was actually defending the administration against the suggestion that this guy must have taken orders straight from Obama because why would some random counsel meet with Obama, right?
Rented Tritium wrote: You remember back when this broke, I was actually defending the administration against the suggestion that this guy must have taken orders straight from Obama because why would some random counsel meet with Obama, right?
Right... and?
It's just interesting. It was reasonable before to say "this argument that there's some vast conspiracy isn't meaningful because it's not like a random counsel would ever meet with the president", but then it turns out that he did, unexpectedly, outside of all expectation and reason. Wut?
It's just curious... that's all. I don't believe it's as damning evidence as others surmises.
Having said that... the argument here is this: Has there been any IRS officials and/or executive offices engage in partisan political activity? It seems that every layers we peel back, more questions arises than answers.
Now, I'll be honest... at the end of the day, I don't think anything would come out of this investigation. I just really hope that the pressure of this investigation gives Congress the urgency to change the laws that empowers the IRS to do this.
Well I'm not conceding that random counsels don't just meet with the president. That's obviously unusual. But I will concede that this one totally did.
Rented Tritium wrote: Well I'm not conceding that random counsels don't just meet with the president. That's obviously unusual. But I will concede that this one totally did.
Bizarre.
Yeah... one thing I couldn't find is that was any of the OLC in that meeting? Not sure if that makes a difference... *shrugs*
Rented Tritium wrote: Well I'm not conceding that random counsels don't just meet with the president. That's obviously unusual. But I will concede that this one totally did.
Bizarre.
Yeah... one thing I couldn't find is that was any of the OLC in that meeting? Not sure if that makes a difference... *shrugs*
Depends on what they were talking about. The OLC needed to be there if it was about legal matters. To be fair, people meet the president for all kinds of random reasons. As unlikely as it is, there exists the possibility that they knew each other and he got worked in for a personal visit, or he was getting congratulated for some award or recommendation or something? There are legitimate explanations, we just don't know if any of them applied, or even if it is related to this scandal at all.
The Obama administration is refusing to say whether a top Internal Revenue Service official visited the White House just before he weighed in on the guidelines used to determine whether a group qualifies for tax-exempt status — raising questions about the role his office played in the agency’s targeting of conservatives.
The White House visitor logs shows that a “William Wilkins” visited the White House on April 23, 2012, but the administration has not said whether this is the same person that President Obama had nominated to become chief counsel for the IRS in 2009.
Mr. Wilkins is one of only two political appointees on the entire IRS staff.
The White House did not respond Wednesday to questions from The Washington Times about the “William Wilkins” visit.
The possibility of a 2012 White House visit has piqued some interest because — according to the May audit that uncovered the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups — Mr. Wilkins’ office “provided additional comments on the draft guidance developed for the Determinations Unit” on April 25, 2012, which would have been two days after the White House visit.
The IRS came under fire in May after the Treasury Department’s auditor released a report that found the IRS used inappropriate criteria when reviewing applications for tax-exempt status from tea party and conservative groups.
The wrongdoing was initially pinned on a few employees from the Cincinnati office of the IRS.
But Carter Hull, a former IRS employee, recently testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that the Washington office of the IRS was also involved and that the issue reached the office of Mr. Wilkins.
Still, it is unclear how deeply Mr. Wilkins was involved in the scandal.
White House press secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that Republicans are trying to make something out of nothing, and that the president has made it clear that he will not tolerate the kind of inappropriate activity that has occurred at the IRS.
“I greatly appreciate that that is the line that is being pushed by Republicans, who want Washington to be focused on scandals instead of the economy,” Mr. Carney said, foreshadowing a line about “phony scandals” that Mr. Obama himself used later in the day in a speech in Illinois.
“What we said all along was based on the IG’s report, which said that the activity was in Cincinnati,” Mr. Carney said. “The IG report and every bit of evidence that has come out since then makes clear that no one at the White House was involved at all or even knew about what was happening. And that has not changed.”
Sorry, can we recap the evidence that conservative groups were actually targeted in a way different from the way progressive groups were targeted? We know that Tea Party and Occupy were both on the BOLO list, right? Which kind of scrutiny/delay did TP orgs get that Occupy orgs didn't?
Mannahnin wrote: Sorry, can we recap the evidence that conservative groups were actually targeted in a way different from the way progressive groups were targeted? We know that Tea Party and Occupy were both on the BOLO list, right? Which kind of scrutiny/delay did TP orgs get that Occupy orgs didn't?
Here's a roundup of the IRS scandal... information galore. Sit down, relax and have your favorite brewski while reading of this.
Yesterday's IRS news bulletin was a bit perplexing. It was no real surprise that the agency had used inappropriate 'BOLO' lists more widely and for longer than we'd previously known. Sweeping malfeasance and subsequent dishonesty is par for the course with them at this point. What was intriguing, though, was the apparent revelation that the IRS had also used key words like "progressive" and "occupy" during their screening process. This begged the question, why didn't these facts come to light much earlier? Liberals and the IRS have been eager to tamp down the festering controversy for weeks, all while insisting that the abuse wasn't politically motivated -- a tale few Americans believe. If the wrongful targeting affected both sides of the spectrum, that would have represented solid evidence for the 'innocent incompetence' defense. As I've written previously, pleading ineptitude boosts conservatives' case that the federal government has become too sprawling and unaccountable, but it's still less damaging than leaving a general impression of deliberate partisan malice. Are we to believe that as the latter assumption calcified in the public's imagination, the IRS and its defenders chose not to disclose the other side of the story? Remember, lefty groups had already stated that they weren't targeted, evidence abounds that left-leaning applications sailed through while righty applications languished, the Inspector General's report clearly showed a distinct ideological imbalance, and Stephen Miller conceded under oath that right-leaning groups were exclusively victimized by the practice. The IRS admitted and apologized for their disparate treatment of conservatives, for crying out loud. So why, after all of that, are we finally being informed that liberal groups were ensnared in the scandal, too? National Review's Eliana Johnson cuts through the fog and makes some important distinctions that help illuminate the truth:
A November 2010 version of the list obtained by National Review Online, however, suggests that while the list did contain the word “progressive,” screeners were in fact instructed to treat “progressive” groups differently from “tea party” groups. Whereas screeners were merely alerted that a designation of 501(c)(3) status “may not be appropriate” for applications containing the word ”progressive” – 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from conducting any political activities – they were told to send those of tea-party groups off IRS higher-ups for further scrutiny. That means the applications of progressive groups could be approved on the spot by line agents, while those of tea-party groups could not. Furthermore, the November 2010 list noted that tea-party cases were “currently being coordinated with EOT,” which stands for Exempt Organizations Technical, a group of tax lawyers in Washington, D.C. Those of progressive groups were not.
So the terms employed during initial screening processes did include words like "progressive" (although from what we know about the original 'BOLO' lists, they were overwhelmingly skewed toward conservative descriptors), but only conservative applications were marked for additional scrutiny -- including micromanagement from Washington. This abuse led to plainly uneven outcomes along ideological lines, as reported by USA Today:
In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked. That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn't be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months. In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows. As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with liberal-sounding names had their applications approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," the liberal groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups.
Zero Tea Party conservative groups' applications were approved for more than two years, as dozens of lefty groups were rubber-stamped. Yes, it seems as though the word "progressive" appeared on some of those 'BOLO' lists (see update below), but the screening and approval process went on as usual for those groups. Not so for the other side, against whom Beltway managers directed added scrutiny, onerous follow-up questionnaires, and interminable delays. Also bear in mind two other elements of the IRS scandal: The targeting of conservative donors, and the wildly improper (and illegal) leaking of conservative groups' confidential donor lists to their political adversaries. When liberals can provide evidence that the IRS shipped, say, a private roster of Planned Parenthood's donors to the Susan B. Anthony List, then we'll talk.[whembly: snicker..lol] That's a hypothetical. In reality, the IRS was actually instructing pro-life groups not to picket Planned Parenthood clinics under penalty of law, and inquiring as to the contents of their prayers. Some on the Left are seizing on yesterday's developments as "proof" that conservative "conspiracy theories" have at last been debunked, or whatever. Nice try. Johnson's piece, plus reams of additional evidence, belie that spin. I repeat: The IRS apologized for its wrongful actions against conservative groups. It's not a conspiracy theory if the harmed party elicits an apology from the culprit, based on the culprit's own internal review.
UPDATE - The DC's Patrick Howley points out another significant difference:
The term “progressive” appeared on a heavily redacted November 2010 ”Be On the Lookout” (BOLO) list released this week by Ways and Means Democrats. The term was used to help the IRS identify political activity that “may not be appropriate” among 501(c)(3) charities eligible for tax-deductible contributions. However, the targeting of conservative groups largely focused on applicants for 501(c)(4) “social welfare organization” status, which shields groups from having to disclose their donors. The scrutinized “progressive” applications were not required to be sent to a special IRS unit for additional review — but tea party and conservative applications were subjected to extra scrutiny by 12 different working groups within the IRS. Tea Party groups were also marked for extra scrutiny in the same document...Ways and Means Democrats did not call any progressive victims of IRS targeting at the committee’s hearing on IRS victims. “I do want to note that the minority was given the opportunity to call a witness, but did not present a witness that had been affected by taxpayer activity — by IRS activity. So, that’s why there is no minority witness at the table today,” Camp said at the June 4 Ways and Means hearing, in response to Democratic Rep. Ron Kind’s complaint that no progressive victims were present at the hearing. Camp later said at the hearing that he welcomed potential progressive victims to come forward, but that no progressive groups had done so by June 4.
Committee Democrats now claim the targeting was bipartisan, so there's no "scandal" to see here. If liberal organizations were equally -- or somewhat equally -- swamped with inappropriate questions, hyper scrutiny from IRS headquarters, and massive delays, why couldn't Cummings' brigade produce a single witness to testify to those facts? And were any IRS working groups formed to review liberal organizations' applications? The agency mobilized twelve such units for scrutinizing conservatives.
Again, from the liberal perspective, it doesn't even matter if the treatment was different or the same. Using names as a criteria is not ok, and being told to use names as a criteria with political motive outside of the usual procedure is double not ok.
And the fact that they didn't even FIND anything when they did this should mean you can't argue "they're just stopping fraud and abuse" because they demonstrably didn't.
Hey... trying to help a fellow dakkanaut in his path of enlightenment with all those links.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote: Again, from the liberal perspective, it doesn't even matter if the treatment was different or the same. Using names as a criteria is not ok, and being told to use names as a criteria with political motive outside of the usual procedure is double not ok.
And the fact that they didn't even FIND anything when they did this should mean you can't argue "they're just stopping fraud and abuse" because they demonstrably didn't.
^ what he said.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's a little update... Is the IRS Obstructing justice?
Now, the duplicate thing is normal. I collect backup docs for projects and I almost always end up filing a ton of duplicate pages because some stuff invariably gets attached every time they submit things to me and I just print it all out and stick it together, so reporting a number that turns out to include duplicates just kind of goes with the territory.
But the gulf between 13k and 65 million is kind of huge.
Now, the duplicate thing is normal. I collect backup docs for projects and I almost always end up filing a ton of duplicate pages because some stuff invariably gets attached every time they submit things to me and I just print it all out and stick it together, so reporting a number that turns out to include duplicates just kind of goes with the territory.
But the gulf between 13k and 65 million is kind of huge.
Well... it looks bad. But, my gut feeling is 65 million seems a tad be excessive. How would anyone know that there's '65 million' documents to begin with? o.O
Now, the duplicate thing is normal. I collect backup docs for projects and I almost always end up filing a ton of duplicate pages because some stuff invariably gets attached every time they submit things to me and I just print it all out and stick it together, so reporting a number that turns out to include duplicates just kind of goes with the territory.
But the gulf between 13k and 65 million is kind of huge.
Well... it looks bad. But, my gut feeling is 65 million seems a tad be excessive. How would anyone know that there's '65 million' documents to begin with? o.O
Yeah, my entire unit probably only produces a couple million pages per year.
Now, the duplicate thing is normal. I collect backup docs for projects and I almost always end up filing a ton of duplicate pages because some stuff invariably gets attached every time they submit things to me and I just print it all out and stick it together, so reporting a number that turns out to include duplicates just kind of goes with the territory.
But the gulf between 13k and 65 million is kind of huge.
Well... it looks bad. But, my gut feeling is 65 million seems a tad be excessive. How would anyone know that there's '65 million' documents to begin with? o.O
Yeah, my entire unit probably only produces a couple million pages per year.
O.o
Wow... that's...a lot. Okay then... that graphs seems accurate.
Now, the duplicate thing is normal. I collect backup docs for projects and I almost always end up filing a ton of duplicate pages because some stuff invariably gets attached every time they submit things to me and I just print it all out and stick it together, so reporting a number that turns out to include duplicates just kind of goes with the territory.
But the gulf between 13k and 65 million is kind of huge.
Well... it looks bad. But, my gut feeling is 65 million seems a tad be excessive. How would anyone know that there's '65 million' documents to begin with? o.O
Yeah, my entire unit probably only produces a couple million pages per year.
O.o
Wow... that's...a lot. Okay then... that graphs seems accurate.
A few things.
1. I'm only estimating.
2. We handle 9 digits.
3. Most of it is electronic, I'm including what it would be if someone asked us to print everything out and deliver it. We're not actually killing that many trees.
Here's a little update... Is the IRS Obstructing justice?
That graph is misleading. Werfel stated that the IRS collected 646 gigabytes of data (~65 million pages) that needed to be examined for material pertinent to the Camp/Levin request, not that it collected 65 million pages of data relating to the targeting of conservative groups.
Dogma... not sure if I disagree with you there as I questioned that 65 million number of pages. However, the committee still feels that the administration is stonewalling this. *shrugs*
Update:
I really, really, REALLY hope that Issa is overstepping here... because this is dire news if true. Keep in mind that this part of the investigation has just started:
The IRS subjected conservative groups already granted tax-exempt status to additional scrutiny during the 2012 election cycle, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) charged on Monday.
Issa called on a Treasury watchdog already looking into the IRS to investigate the matter, and signaled he would expand his committee’s probe into improper targeting of political groups given the new revelations.
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the ranking member on Issa’s panel, accused the chairman of pushing a “political narrative” by picking choice quotes and disregarding contrary evidence.
“It is unfortunate that you persist in this pattern of selectively releasing quotes instead of conducting a responsible investigation focused on implementing real reforms. I urge you to focus on obtaining the full set of facts rather than making unsubstantiated allegations,” he said in a letter sent to Issa Monday.
He said the Virginia-based Leadership Institute was audited in 2011 and 2012 for activities it engaged in during the 2008 election year, even though it had functioned as a tax-exempt organization since 1979.
It faced “invasive questions” — including about its interns and where they went on to work — and ended up turning over to the IRS more than 23,000 pages of documents at a cost of roughly $50,000 to comply with the inquiry, Issa said.
“It has come to the attention of the committee that in addition to inappropriate treatment given to some applicants for tax-exempt status, existing organizations already recognized as tax-exempt by the IRS, appear to have faced questionable treatment by the IRS,” Issa wrote Monday in a letter to the Treasury inspector general (IG) for tax administration.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), an Oversight subcommittee chairman, also signed on to the request that the Treasury watchdog do a second investigation.
Issa said the Institute was told by the IRS office conducting the audit that there would be follow-up document requests and questions. About two months later, in July 2012, the IRS concluded the audit, which is roughly the same time the Treasury IG determined the IRS changed its process for scrutinizing potential political groups applying for tax-exempt status.
Issa specifically questioned whether the IRS had a “systematic” plan in place to automatically review conservative groups several years after granting an exemption. He said that interviews with 18 IRS employees indicated that at least some Tea Party groups were referred to the unit that conducted follow-up scrutiny.
Cummings took issue with this claim, saying that the head of the IRS exempt organizations unit in Cincinnati told congressional investigators that groups were referred to this unit on a case-by-case basis. He added that a separate IRS employee told investigators that a referral to this unit did not automatically mean an audit would occur, and that referrals to this group were actually meant to facilitate an approval, not burden the organization with added inquiries.
The administration has acknowledged problems at the IRS, but it has joined Democratic lawmakers in arguing that liberal groups also came under scrutiny.
Treasury Secretary Jack Lew told “Fox News Sunday” that an investigation into the IRS practice revealed problems at the agency, but also that progressive groups were improperly targeted alongside conservative ones. He also added that there was no evidence of political pressure.
Joseph Metzger, the vice president of finance at the Institute, told The Hill that the group had previously been audited twice before, once under President Reagan and again under President Clinton.
While the most recent audit was painful, Metzger said the audit under Clinton was “particularly savage” and spanned three years and five different agents. He said the one in the 1980s was more “routine in nature.”
The Leadership Institute states on its website that its mission is to “increase the number and effectiveness of conservative activists and leaders in the public policy process.”
It also includes a disclaimer at the bottom of its website stating that it is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization, and does not endorse or oppose candidates or legislation.
The head of another conservative group, the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, claimed they faced “harassment” from the IRS, as they worked to comply with an audit that took most of a year and cost “tens of thousands of dollars.” The group was founded in 1993.
On its website, the group describes its mission as “preparing and promoting conservative women leaders.” The existing probe into the IRS has so far failed to tie any of the IRS targeting to White House or high-ranking Treasury officials.
President Obama chastised Washington last Wednesday for pursuing “phony scandals” instead of policies to grow the economy.
What I would like to know, is this:
A) What is a typical audit of an existing 501(c)(3) organisation? How often does this normally occur?
B) I'd be curious how many conservative 501(c)(3) organisations were under audit just prior to the IG report.
C) Obama's "phony scandals" is just a poor choice of words...
In a remarkable admission that is likely to rock the Internal Revenue Service again, testimony released Thursday by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp reveals that an agent involved in reviewing tax exempt applications from conservative groups told a committee investigator that the agency is still targeting Tea Party groups, three months after the IRS scandal erupted..
In closed door testimony before the House Ways & Means Committee, the unidentified IRS agent said requests for special tax status from Tea Party groups is being forced into a special "secondary screening" because the agency has yet to come up with new guidance on how to judge the tax status of the groups.
In a transcript from the committee provided to Secrets, a Ways & Means investigator asked: "If you saw -- I am asking this currently, if today if a Tea Party case, a group -- a case from a Tea Party group came in to your desk, you reviewed the file and there was no evidence of political activity, would you potentially approve that case? Is that something you would do?"
The agent said, "At this point I would send it to secondary screening, political advocacy."
The committee staffer then said, "So you would treat a Tea Party group as a political advocacy case even if there was no evidence of political activity on the application. Is that right?" The agent admitted, "Based on my current manager's direction, uh-huh."
Camp called the renewed targeting of Tea Party groups "outrageous."
Added a committee aide, "In plain English, the IRS is still targeting Tea Party cases."
During 2010-2012 period when the anti-Obama Tea Party groups faced special scrutiny from the president's IRS, agents used a "be on the lookout," or BOLO, list which said groups with words like "Tea Party" in their title should face special, secondary screening for political activities that might hamper their special tax status.
When the scandal erupted after a Treasury Department inspector general revealed the improper political scrutiny, the acting head of the IRS, Danny Werfel, said the BOLO list had been suspended. That was six weeks ago.
But because there is nothing in its place, agents apparently either don't know how to handle Tea Party tax exempt applications, or are too scared to make a decision.
Asked by the committee how it handles Tea Party applications, the agent said, "If a political advocacy case came in today, I would give it -- or talk about it to my manager because right now we really don't have any direction or we haven't had any for the last month and a half."
Camp, the Michigan Republican, told Secrets, "It is outrageous that IRS management continues to target Tea Party cases without any justification. The harassment, abuse and delays these Americans have faced over the last few years has been unwarranted, unprovoked and, at times, possibly illegal. The fact that the IRS still continues to treat the Tea Party differently and subject them to additional targeting is outrageous and it must stop immediately."
-----
Below is the Ways & Means Committee transcript of the IRS official.
Wednesday, August 1, 2013
Committee: Today, currently, how do you analyze advocacy cases. If, for example, Tea Party of Arkansas came in today, how would you handle it?
IRS agent: Well, the BOLO list doesn't exist anymore.
Committee: Sure.
IRS: If a political advocacy case came in today, I would give it -- or talk about it to my manager because right now we really don't have any direction or we haven't had any for the last month and a half.
------
Committee: If you saw -- I am asking this currently, if today if a Tea Party case, a group -- a case from a Tea Party group came in to your desk, you reviewed the file and there was no evidence of political activity, would you potentially approve that case? Is that something you would do?
IRS agent: At this point I would send it to secondary screening, political advocacy.
Committee: So you would treat a Tea Party group as a political advocacy case even if there was no evidence of political activity on the application. Is that right?
IRS agent: Based on my current manager's direction, uh-huh.
The only people who still aren't satisfied are rabid righties. Everyone else has realized that this was a tempest in a Teapot with nothing much really going on out of the ordinary.
Alfndrate wrote: Does anyone want to join my tea party? We try out new teas
I heard protesters are disrupting shipments of high end disrelee (spelling) tea in India. Won't someone think of the Tea Party?!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: The only people who still aren't satisfied are rabid righties. Everyone else has realized that this was a tempest in a Teapot with nothing much really going on out of the ordinary.
really? Targetting was vetted by a political appointee of Abama but its onlya tempest in a teapot? You're from Chicago aren't you...
Except we have learned it was not "just" conservatives. Therefore, it was the IRS actually doing their job, which Dogma has pointed out many times.
If Conservative groups wer ethe only group targetted, I would agree that this was unwarranted and crazy. Since it has been demonstrably proven by several media sources that other groups were also given scrutiny then it is no longer targetting but due diligence.
Of course, I'm still waiting for more "facts" to come out and not just Rep Issa's fishing expeditions.
Easy E wrote: Except we have learned it was not "just" conservatives. Therefore, it was the IRS actually doing their job, which Dogma has pointed out many times.
If Conservative groups wer ethe only group targetted, I would agree that this was unwarranted and crazy. Since it has been demonstrably proven by several media sources that other groups were also given scrutiny then it is no longer targetting but due diligence.
Of course, I'm still waiting for more "facts" to come out and not just Rep Issa's fishing expeditions.
More then 90 conservative groups, and 3 liberal groups, does not mean they were being "impartial" in their search.
The Cincinnati office did improperly target conservative groups. Made clear by the fact that they were specifically targeting groups using words like "Tea Party".
Easy E wrote: Except we have learned it was not "just" conservatives. Therefore, it was the IRS actually doing their job, which Dogma has pointed out many times.
If Conservative groups wer ethe only group targetted, I would agree that this was unwarranted and crazy. Since it has been demonstrably proven by several media sources that other groups were also given scrutiny then it is no longer targetting but due diligence.
Of course, I'm still waiting for more "facts" to come out and not just Rep Issa's fishing expeditions.
adding in an occupy group or two doesn't make it targeted. It means they were going after all enemies of Dear Leader, not just the Republicans.
Easy E wrote: Except we have learned it was not "just" conservatives. Therefore, it was the IRS actually doing their job, which Dogma has pointed out many times.
If Conservative groups wer ethe only group targetted, I would agree that this was unwarranted and crazy. Since it has been demonstrably proven by several media sources that other groups were also given scrutiny then it is no longer targetting but due diligence.
Of course, I'm still waiting for more "facts" to come out and not just Rep Issa's fishing expeditions.
More then 90 conservative groups, and 3 liberal groups, does not mean they were being "impartial" in their search.
The Cincinnati office did improperly target conservative groups. Made clear by the fact that they were specifically targeting groups using words like "Tea Party".
Have we forgotten (or are we ignoring) the fact that the conservatives that initiated the investigation of the IRS specifically asked to look for (and only for) conservative groups that were targeted?
The investigation did not start as "see if the IRS targeted political groups" or "see if the IRS targeted any gorups" but only "see which conservative groups were targeted". The reason the initial investigation found so many conservative groups was because they were instructed to look for conservative groups. Once different investigations started to see if liberal groups were targeted as well they found out that the targeting of political groups included both conservatives and liberals.
But of course we already know that. And now we will go into the usual spin of "how things are different" and "depends on what definition of targeting you are using" and "it doesn't matter that the groups don't meet the status, the IRS shouldn't be allowed to investigate to make sure people are following the rules".
So many legitimate things that the Obama administration could be targeted for, but the conservative spin machine is trying to combine the "people hate big government" with "people hate the IRS" and make a non-story into a perfect storm.
Maybe after loosing two more presidential elections the GOP will figure out that their old values and ideas don't work and that their tactics are doing nothing to bring in new voters.
Easy E wrote: Except we have learned it was not "just" conservatives. Therefore, it was the IRS actually doing their job, which Dogma has pointed out many times.
If Conservative groups wer ethe only group targetted, I would agree that this was unwarranted and crazy. Since it has been demonstrably proven by several media sources that other groups were also given scrutiny then it is no longer targetting but due diligence.
Of course, I'm still waiting for more "facts" to come out and not just Rep Issa's fishing expeditions.
I made the title the way I did because, in the past, conservative groups often protested of IRS harassment while their claims were being chalked up to paranoia. What's that old saying? Even paranoids can have real enemies?
- No liberal groups suffered the same type of scrutiny from the IRS – Not one
This is the only part that matters. The rest can very easily be explained by way of the proliferation of new, conservative NPOs in the wake of Obama's first election.
- No liberal groups suffered the same type of scrutiny from the IRS – Not one
This is the only part that matters. The rest can very easily be explained by way of the proliferation of new, conservative NPOs in the wake of Obama's first election.
Exactly. The IRS did nothing wrong except try to actually "enforce" the law.
Also, all the way back on July 18th, we saw that it wasn't just Conservative/Tea Party groups:
His audit, released in May, cited criteria including "tea party" and other conservative-themed words or labels that were used to decide whether applicants for tax-exempt status should come under further review. Since then, an investigation by the panel turned up documents that showed IRS workers also were told to look for the liberal-themed label.
So let's stop being all butt-hurt about Conservatives being treated unfairly. I know you guys like to be the victims and all, but this time you weren't. Sorry. Everyone was getting special scrutiny because the special tax designation was being abused.
- No liberal groups suffered the same type of scrutiny from the IRS – Not one
This is the only part that matters. The rest can very easily be explained by way of the proliferation of new, conservative NPOs in the wake of Obama's first election.
Exactly. The IRS did nothing wrong except try to actually "enforce" the law.
Also, all the way back on July 18th, we saw that it wasn't just Conservative/Tea Party groups:
His audit, released in May, cited criteria including "tea party" and other conservative-themed words or labels that were used to decide whether applicants for tax-exempt status should come under further review. Since then, an investigation by the panel turned up documents that showed IRS workers also were told to look for the liberal-themed label.
So let's stop being all butt-hurt about Conservatives being treated unfairly. I know you guys like to be the victims and all, but this time you weren't. Sorry. Everyone was getting special scrutiny because the special tax designation was being abused.
Read my previous posts bucko... that was debunked.
Here's a chart:
As you can see, not only were more Tea Party groups targeted... those that were targeted were given more scrutiny in terms of the number of questions asked of them.
My personal opinion...The Tea Party (And similar groups) are political groups based around the idea that taxes are bad. It is more likely that those types of groups would try to abuse/ignore rules that apply to taxes.
This is simply a case of the IRS getting the most bang for their buck as far as their resources are concerned.
skyth wrote: My personal opinion...The Tea Party (And similar groups) are political groups based around the idea that taxes are bad. It is more likely that those types of groups would try to abuse/ignore rules that apply to taxes.
This is simply a case of the IRS getting the most bang for their buck as far as their resources are concerned.
Unless you have facts and stats to base that opinion on, it is worthless. Since even the IRS does not seem to be claiming what you are, I would really like to see something to back up your opinion.
Emails undercut the official IRS story on political targeting
Congress's investigation into the IRS targeting of conservatives has been continuing out of the Syria headlines, and it's turning up news. Emails unearthed by the House Ways and Means Committee between former Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner and her staff raise doubts about IRS claims that the targeting wasn't politically motivated and that low-level employees in Cincinnati masterminded the operation.
In a February 2011 email, Ms. Lerner advised her staff—including then Exempt Organizations Technical Manager Michael Seto and then Rulings and Agreements director Holly Paz—that a Tea Party matter is "very dangerous," and is something "Counsel and [Lerner adviser] Judy Kindell need to be in on." Ms. Lerner adds, "Cincy should probably NOT have these cases."
That's a different tune than the IRS sang in May when former IRS Commissioner Steven Miller said the agency's overzealous enforcement was the work of two "rogue" employees in Cincinnati. When the story broke, Ms. Lerner suggested that her office had been unaware of the pattern of targeting until she read about it in the newspaper. "So it was pretty much we started seeing information in the press that raised questions for us, and we went back and took a look," she said in May.
Earlier this summer, IRS lawyer Carter Hull, who oversaw the review of many Tea Party cases and questionnaires, testified that his oversight began in April 2010. Tea party cases under review are "being supervised by Chip Hull at each step," Ms. Paz wrote to Ms. Lerner in a February 2011 email. "He reviews info from TPs, correspondence to TPs etc. No decisions are going out of Cincy until we go all the way through the process with the c3 and c4 cases here." TP stands for Tea Party, and she means 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) nonprofit groups.
The emails also put the targeting in the context of the media and Congressional drumbeat over the impact of conservative campaign spending on the 2012 elections. On July 10, 2012 then Lerner-adviser Sharon Light emailed Ms. Lerner a National Public Radio story on how outside money was making it hard for Democrats to hold their Senate majority.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had complained to the Federal Election Commission that conservative groups like Crossroads GPS and Americans for Prosperity should be treated as political committees, rather than 501(c)(4)s, which are tax-exempt social welfare groups that do not have to disclose their donors.
"Perhaps the FEC will save the day," Ms. Lerner wrote back later that morning.
That response suggests Ms. Lerner's political leanings, and it also raises questions about Ms. Lerner's intentions in a separate email exchange she had when an FEC investigator inquired about the status of the conservative group the American Future Fund. The FEC and IRS don't have the authority to share that information under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code. But the bigger question is why did they want to? After the FEC inquiry, the American Future Fund also got a questionnaire from the IRS.
Ms. Lerner famously invoked her right against self-incrimination rather than testify under oath to Congress. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee reported this summer that its investigation had found Ms. Lerner had sent official IRS documents to her personal email account, and many questions remain unanswered. Democrats want to pretend the IRS scandal is over, but Ms. Lerner's role deserves much more exposure.
So she oversaw the unit that engaged in targeting groups, broke the news that they engaged in targeting, plead the 5th, and now she is retiring and being paid from the public purse.
7 hours ago
Key IRS official retires after controversy
Posted by
CNN's Dana Bash and Kevin Bohn and Deirdre Walsh
Washington (CNN) - The woman who first confirmed the Internal Revenue Service had unfairly targeted certain political groups is retiring, the IRS said in a statement Monday.
Lois Lerner, director of tax exempt organizations for the IRS, was placed on administrative leave in May, just weeks after she admitted the IRS was applying extra scrutiny to certain groups between 2010 and 2012.
Her statements were followed by an audit with similar findings by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.
"We can confirm today that Lois Lerner has retired," the IRS said in a statement. "Under federal privacy rules, the IRS cannot comment further on individual employee matters."
Lerner drew fierce criticism from Republicans shortly after she admitted at an American Bar Association conference and later in a phone conference with reporters that the IRS had focused on groups with the names "tea party" and "patriot" in their titles. Over the summer, however, more investigations revealed that the IRS had also looked closely at groups that used the word "progressive."
She appeared before the House Oversight Committee in May and stated she had not broken any laws or agency regulations. She then invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and declined to answer questions. However, she could still be called back to testify.
It was one of several congressional hearings held this past summer over the IRS controversy.
Her retirement came Monday as an accountability review board–which was created by IRS Acting Commissioner Danny Werfel to investigate the issue–had completed its work and reached out to Lerner's attorney to notify her they would be recommending her removal, according to Rep. Sander Levin, top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee.
The same review did not find any political bias or willful misconduct.
Levin argued the latest review disproves Republican claims of outside influence to target groups based on political ideology.
“The basic overreaching premise of the Republicans that the IRS had an ‘enemies list’ and was being influenced from the outside has been proven wrong again, as it has again and again,” Levin said.
CNN requested a response from Lerner's attorney, but has not yet received one.
House Oversight and Government Reform chairman Darrell Issa said Lerner's departure "does not alter" his committee's "interest in understanding why applicants for tax exempt status were targeted and inappropriately treated because of their political beliefs."
"We still don't know why Lois Lerner, as a senior IRS official, had such a personal interest in directing scrutiny and why she denied improper conduct to Congress," he said in a statement, adding the committee is still interested in hearing her testimony.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So she oversaw the unit that engaged in targeting groups, broke the news that they engaged in targeting, plead the 5th, and now she is retiring and being paid from the public purse.
7 hours ago
Key IRS official retires after controversy
Posted by
CNN's Dana Bash and Kevin Bohn and Deirdre Walsh
Washington (CNN) - The woman who first confirmed the Internal Revenue Service had unfairly targeted certain political groups is retiring, the IRS said in a statement Monday.
Lois Lerner, director of tax exempt organizations for the IRS, was placed on administrative leave in May, just weeks after she admitted the IRS was applying extra scrutiny to certain groups between 2010 and 2012.
Her statements were followed by an audit with similar findings by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.
"We can confirm today that Lois Lerner has retired," the IRS said in a statement. "Under federal privacy rules, the IRS cannot comment further on individual employee matters."
Lerner drew fierce criticism from Republicans shortly after she admitted at an American Bar Association conference and later in a phone conference with reporters that the IRS had focused on groups with the names "tea party" and "patriot" in their titles. Over the summer, however, more investigations revealed that the IRS had also looked closely at groups that used the word "progressive."
She appeared before the House Oversight Committee in May and stated she had not broken any laws or agency regulations. She then invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and declined to answer questions. However, she could still be called back to testify.
It was one of several congressional hearings held this past summer over the IRS controversy.
Her retirement came Monday as an accountability review board–which was created by IRS Acting Commissioner Danny Werfel to investigate the issue–had completed its work and reached out to Lerner's attorney to notify her they would be recommending her removal, according to Rep. Sander Levin, top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee.
The same review did not find any political bias or willful misconduct.
Levin argued the latest review disproves Republican claims of outside influence to target groups based on political ideology.
“The basic overreaching premise of the Republicans that the IRS had an ‘enemies list’ and was being influenced from the outside has been proven wrong again, as it has again and again,” Levin said.
CNN requested a response from Lerner's attorney, but has not yet received one.
House Oversight and Government Reform chairman Darrell Issa said Lerner's departure "does not alter" his committee's "interest in understanding why applicants for tax exempt status were targeted and inappropriately treated because of their political beliefs."
"We still don't know why Lois Lerner, as a senior IRS official, had such a personal interest in directing scrutiny and why she denied improper conduct to Congress," he said in a statement, adding the committee is still interested in hearing her testimony.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So she oversaw the unit that engaged in targeting groups, broke the news that they engaged in targeting, plead the 5th, and now she is retiring and being paid from the public purse.
Sounds like a good gig if you can get it.
Absolutely! Get a job as a high paid public servant, abuse your power, openly say that you abused your power, refuse to be held to account for your actions, then retire and get paid for it.
"vast bureaucracies of civil servants no longer servants, no longer civil." - Churchill
IRS scandal figure Lois Lerner is negotiating through her lawyers with Rep. Darrell Issa’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee about possibly gaining immunity to testify again in the committee’s investigative hearings.
“The Chairman did not adjourn the hearing, he recessed it. Ms. Lerner remains under subpoena. The Committee has not made any offer of immunity to Ms. Lerner. The Committee has, however, indicated a willingness to listen to any offers from her attorney about what she would testify to if it was offered,” Oversight Committee adviser Ali Ahmad told The Daily Caller.
“I don’t have any update for you on timing,” Ahmad said in regard to when Lerner will be called back before the committee.
Though Lerner, who apologized for her IRS division’s improper scrutiny of conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status, can be called back before Issa’s committee without immunity, and even arrested if she doesn’t show up, Oversight seems to be taking a more diplomatic approach to get information out of her.
Washington-based Lerner tried to plead the Fifth to avoid self-incrimination in congressional testimony in May, but the Oversight Committee ruled that she waived her Fifth Amendment rights when she said “I have not broken any laws” before attempting her plea.
Emails released this month show Lerner appearing to collude with Democratic operatives and the Federal Election Commission in targeting tea party groups in 2011.
The IRS did not return a request for comment on the nature of Lerner’s negotiations with investigators.
So... the committee need her to testify truthfully about who ordered what and when, in order to see if this attack on the administration’s political opponents reaches to presidential appointees or the White House itself.
If she has that sort of information and is willing to testify to it... then the committee should trade full immunity for it.
What I find interesting, is that if this turns out to be ALL Lois' doing...then, obviously she ain't doing anything besides reaffirming her 5th. So... here's the kicker...if that’s all Lerner has... then, she doesn't have to do anything. But, the fact that she/her attorney is willing to discuss full immunity... that suggest she has information to give.
IRS scandal figure Lois Lerner is negotiating through her lawyers with Rep. Darrell Issa’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee about possibly gaining immunity to testify again in the committee’s investigative hearings.
“The Chairman did not adjourn the hearing, he recessed it. Ms. Lerner remains under subpoena. The Committee has not made any offer of immunity to Ms. Lerner. The Committee has, however, indicated a willingness to listen to any offers from her attorney about what she would testify to if it was offered,” Oversight Committee adviser Ali Ahmad told The Daily Caller.
“I don’t have any update for you on timing,” Ahmad said in regard to when Lerner will be called back before the committee.
Though Lerner, who apologized for her IRS division’s improper scrutiny of conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status, can be called back before Issa’s committee without immunity, and even arrested if she doesn’t show up, Oversight seems to be taking a more diplomatic approach to get information out of her.
Washington-based Lerner tried to plead the Fifth to avoid self-incrimination in congressional testimony in May, but the Oversight Committee ruled that she waived her Fifth Amendment rights when she said “I have not broken any laws” before attempting her plea.
Emails released this month show Lerner appearing to collude with Democratic operatives and the Federal Election Commission in targeting tea party groups in 2011.
The IRS did not return a request for comment on the nature of Lerner’s negotiations with investigators.
So... the committee need her to testify truthfully about who ordered what and when, in order to see if this attack on the administration’s political opponents reaches to presidential appointees or the White House itself.
If she has that sort of information and is willing to testify to it... then the committee should trade full immunity for it.
What I find interesting, is that if this turns out to be ALL Lois' doing...then, obviously she ain't doing anything besides reaffirming her 5th. So... here's the kicker...if that’s all Lerner has... then, she doesn't have to do anything. But, the fact that she/her attorney is willing to discuss full immunity... that suggest she has information to give.
I say give her immunity, but if she is untruthful, unco-operative, or deceptive then rescind the deal.
When what I assume is your preferred party retakes the 
