Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It actually doesn't indicate she knows of criminal acts involved in the scandal. It indicates she knows of something criminal, which answering the question would reveal which might not be about this scandal but maybe some other scandal we don't know about. I'm guessing mole men.

Clearly Obama is on the verge of turning the US of A into a glorious socialist utopia because a government agency messed up.

Truly the IRS being confused by a overcomplicated tax system is a totally new occurrence,.

 LordofHats wrote:
It actually doesn't indicate she knows of criminal acts involved in the scandal. It indicates she knows of something criminal, which answering the question would reveal which might not be about this scandal but maybe some other scandal we don't know about. I'm guessing mole men.

All the more reason for us to DIG and find out!

Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week.

 djones520 wrote:
All the more reason for us to DIG and find out!

Come on guys, lets not get off topic, we have lots of discuss about that the IRS has DUG itself into this time!

 LordofHats wrote:
I'm guessing mole men.

Mole...men...?

When the IRS revelations broke, Obama promised a full investigation. Yet Cleta Mitchell, an attorney for a number of tea party and conservative groups targeted by the IRS, testified, “None of my clients have received a single contact from the FBI, the DOJ [Department of Justice] or any other investigator regarding the IRS scandal.”

I thought the substance of the scandal was that her clients were contacted by investigators too frequently.

Also testifying was one of Mitchell’s clients, Catherine Engelbrecht, owner of a small Texas manufacturing firm who organized two non-profits, one of them True the Vote.

In running a business for two decades, she had never been investigated by the federal government. But since the beginning of her political activism in 2010, “my private business, my nonprofit organizations, and family have been subjected to more than 15 instances of audit or inquiry by federal agencies.” Those include the IRS, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol and Firearms, and the FBI.

True the Vote has arguably engaged in voter intimidation, and been accused of fraud outside the state of Texas (where it is based), so that explains the FBI investigation.

Engelbrecht also admitted to applying for 501(c)(3) status for True the Vote, despite an organizational history of political activity; so that explains the IRS investigations into the organization, Engelbrecht, her family, and corporations.

As to OSHA, and the ATF...maybe her business practices are crap? She hardly seems like a sympathetic individual.

 whembly wrote:
Well... give it a chance. You never know.

Remember Scooter Libby?

I don't think anyone went in to the Scooter Libby thing hoping that it was his head they'd claim. So when the buck stopped with Libby and went no further, there was plenty of reason to doubt the quality of that investigation. Especially given the political connections of the lead investigator. Now, I'm not saying the investigation there was properly handled or not, I'm just talking about the perception people held.

And that's really why this appointment is so terrible - you must not only do justice, but you must be seen to be doing justice. Even if this investigation is properly handled, the political connections of the lead investigator will cause a lot of people to doubt its processes and conclusions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Deserve a new thread, or stick it here? Bah, keep it clean

On a slight tangent, there's currently a debate here in Oz going on here about how we register charities. It's currently done by one national body, but that body has over-reached in a couple of areas, under-delivered in a couple of others and it is perceived it costs a lot more than it ought to in general. Reform is needed, but others are pushing for dissolution and going back to having each state regulate its charities, or to having out tax office, the ATO take over the role.

That last option has led to a rather interesting debate over that's pretty clearly established that putting the tax collecting body in charge of who is and isn't a charity is a terrible idea, because by their very nature body charities and tax collecting agencies are going to be antagonistic. And it seems to me that's actually what's driving a lot of the issue with the IRS - the requests for information take on an intimidating tone simply because of who's asking, and not actually what they're asking for.

That isn't to say that what's happened is just inevitable (the IRS could have handled a lot of its investigations a lot better) or that there's no issue of conservative groups being focussed on more closely isn't a thing (though that's certainly a lot more questionable than it was at first, as more information came to light)... but just to say that really, all this could have been avoided had charity registration been handled by a different organisation, and to point out that this is likely to happen all over again in some other form unless some group other than the IRS handles charity registration in the future.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Another coincidence that: James O'Keefe group being audited by NY. Again.

Capone claiming it was unfair that he got so much police attention didn’t really work because he did a lot of criminal stuff. O'Keefe claiming he's getting victimised only works if he isn't actually breaking tax law.

Still another coincidence that: IRS proposes new 501(c)(4) Rules That just so happens to cover most tea party groups.

It covers political groups on the exact opposite end of the political spectrum just as much.

Yet another coincidence: Dinesh D'Souza indicted for election fraud... politically motivated?

That's a pretty goofy article, making out that D'Souza just 'oh whoopsie' happened to accidentally fall foul of the law through some technicality, when what he actually did was attempt to avoid the $5,000 limit by giving money through other people's names.

I mean, that's pretty clearly fraud by the law you've got. If there's other cases where such things have happened but there was no prosecution, then by all means list them and then I can agree the law is being selective. But in and of itself, D'Souza's case seems kind of obvious to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Keep in mind that the proposed change is directed only at 501(c)(4) social-welfare groups... the tax category that has of late been flooded by conservative/Tea Parth groups.

The unions/Chamber of Commerce groups, traditionally very pro-Democrats (which file under 501(c)(5))... are largely unscathed with these proposed rule changes and can continue playing in politics.

Chamber of Commerce pro-Democrat? Those groups form explicitly to represent and lobby on behalf of business. If Republicans don't have them on-side something is very wrong with that party.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Well... give it a chance. You never know.

Remember Scooter Libby?

I don't think anyone went in to the Scooter Libby thing hoping that it was his head they'd claim. So when the buck stopped with Libby and went no further, there was plenty of reason to doubt the quality of that investigation. Especially given the political connections of the lead investigator. Now, I'm not saying the investigation there was properly handled or not, I'm just talking about the perception people held.

And that's really why this appointment is so terrible - you must not only do justice, but you must be seen to be doing justice. Even if this investigation is properly handled, the political connections of the lead investigator will cause a lot of people to doubt its processes and conclusions.

Agreed... the current investigator was a poor pick for obvious reasons.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Deserve a new thread, or stick it here? Bah, keep it clean

On a slight tangent, there's currently a debate here in Oz going on here about how we register charities. It's currently done by one national body, but that body has over-reached in a couple of areas, under-delivered in a couple of others and it is perceived it costs a lot more than it ought to in general. Reform is needed, but others are pushing for dissolution and going back to having each state regulate its charities, or to having out tax office, the ATO take over the role.

That last option has led to a rather interesting debate over that's pretty clearly established that putting the tax collecting body in charge of who is and isn't a charity is a terrible idea, because by their very nature body charities and tax collecting agencies are going to be antagonistic. And it seems to me that's actually what's driving a lot of the issue with the IRS - the requests for information take on an intimidating tone simply because of who's asking, and not actually what they're asking for.

That isn't to say that what's happened is just inevitable (the IRS could have handled a lot of its investigations a lot better) or that there's no issue of conservative groups being focussed on more closely isn't a thing (though that's certainly a lot more questionable than it was at first, as more information came to light)... but just to say that really, all this could have been avoided had charity registration been handled by a different organisation, and to point out that this is likely to happen all over again in some other form unless some group other than the IRS handles charity registration in the future.

Two things... there's a perception problem if the 'Tax-Man' is making these sorts of determination, regardless if they truly perform the job accurately. So, any other agency would be a better choice.

Secondly... honestly please, had this happened under a Republican administration vs liberal groups, would you still defend the IRS actions?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Another coincidence that: James O'Keefe group being audited by NY. Again.

Capone claiming it was unfair that he got so much police attention didn’t really work because he did a lot of criminal stuff. O'Keefe claiming he's getting victimised only works if he isn't actually breaking tax law.

Heh... guess, what... he wasn't breaking the law. If I remember right, he posted the full video in his last two stings. I'll admit, he's an f'n troublemaker that seems to push the envelope too much.

Still another coincidence that: IRS proposes new 501(c)(4) Rules That just so happens to cover most tea party groups.

It covers political groups on the exact opposite end of the political spectrum just as much.

No...it's an attempt to legitimize the "targeting". gak, the (R) in both house are pushing for delays of such implementation until a more thorough review is done:
http://freebeacon.com/house-committee-approves-bill-to-prevent-irs-targeting/
http://freebeacon.com/senators-introduce-bill-to-prevent-irs-targeting-protect-free-speech/

Yet another coincidence: Dinesh D'Souza indicted for election fraud... politically motivated?

That's a pretty goofy article, making out that D'Souza just 'oh whoopsie' happened to accidentally fall foul of the law through some technicality, when what he actually did was attempt to avoid the $5,000 limit by giving money through other people's names.

I mean, that's pretty clearly fraud by the law you've got. If there's other cases where such things have happened but there was no prosecution, then by all means list them and then I can agree the law is being selective. But in and of itself, D'Souza's case seems kind of obvious to me.

Yes, he did break the law, but what's interesting is that this seemed retalitory... in a sense, "selective prosecution". The prosecutor behind this is on the shortlist to replace Holder.

If you want to demand ‘zero tolerance,’ let’s have at it... let's have unfettered FBI/DOJ investigation into every allegation, starting with the fundraising apparatus built by the president (the online contributions website with disabled verify mechanisms) and his ‘Chicagoland’ cronies.

*shrug*

The real issue is that campaign finance law is so haphazardly enforced... usually, its someone who so egregiously breaks the law (ie, straw donor schemes involving hundreds of thousand, if not millions), rather than the $15,000 D'Souza contributed.

Fifteen G is piddly money... what does that buy? A dinner roll in politics?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Keep in mind that the proposed change is directed only at 501(c)(4) social-welfare groups... the tax category that has of late been flooded by conservative/Tea Parth groups.

The unions/Chamber of Commerce groups, traditionally very pro-Democrats (which file under 501(c)(5))... are largely unscathed with these proposed rule changes and can continue playing in politics.

Chamber of Commerce pro-Democrat? Those groups form explicitly to represent and lobby on behalf of business. If Republicans don't have them on-side something is very wrong with that party.

You're deflecting...

One of the most bi-partisan things about this country is bureaucratic issues. No matter what the President, no matter what the head of state, gak happens.

This isn't an excuse obviously, but to think Obama is literally destroying this country because he's made the same mistakes pretty much every president does to varying degrees is silly

Hell, it's really funny to read my dads old diaries about when he worked at the Reagan white house during Iran Contra, and how he says word for word how something like this will probably happen again under a Democratic president and it will be the Repub's setting the torches and sharpening the pitchforks.

For the record, yes my father was and still is a democrat.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
One of the most bi-partisan things about this country is bureaucratic issues. No matter what the President, no matter what the head of state, gak happens.

This isn't an excuse obviously, but to think Obama is literally destroying this country because he's made the same mistakes pretty much every president does to varying degrees is silly

Hell, it's really funny to read my dads old diaries about when he worked at the Reagan white houses during Iran Contra, and how he says word for word how something like this will probably happen again under a Democratic president and it will be the Repub's setting the torches and sharpening the pitchforks.

For the record, yes my father was and still is a democrat.

I've never said Obama is "destroying this country" and I don't believe any other posters are really arguing that (unless it's some cheeky retort).

How 'bout this.... let's JUST talk about the current IRS snafu.

Had this occured under a Republican administration... only this time, the targets were liberal advocacy groups. What's your response?

 Alexzandvar wrote:
One of the most bi-partisan things about this country is bureaucratic issues. No matter what the President, no matter what the head of state, gak happens.

This isn't an excuse obviously, but to think Obama is literally destroying this country because he's made the same mistakes pretty much every president does to varying degrees is silly

Hell, it's really funny to read my dads old diaries about when he worked at the Reagan white house during Iran Contra, and how he says word for word how something like this will probably happen again under a Democratic president and it will be the Repub's setting the torches and sharpening the pitchforks.

For the record, yes my father was and still is a democrat.

You have an insanely varied circle of friends and family who have experienced everything related to every topic on this board, including significant moments in history. I find it remarkable no one has written a Forrest Gump-style book about you guys yet.

 whembly wrote:

You're deflecting...

Pointing out that chambers of commerce are, generally speaking, not pro-Democrat is not deflection as it pertains directly to your knowledge and competence regarding the debate at hand.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

You're deflecting...

Pointing out that chambers of commerce are, generally speaking, not pro-Democrat is not deflection as it pertains directly to your knowledge and competence regarding the debate at hand.

You're in the same bucket.

My father had a very exciting life, so I don't get your point that I'm making all this up because I have a very weird (and big) family.

The more you develop a larger group of friends, the more people you will meet who have done just things in life in general.

I also don't see how me often referring to my life experiences when discussing a topic is any more strange than when you do it.

I also never really made a secret of who my father is, hell when he want for congress I linked his campaign page here.

 whembly wrote:

You're in the same bucket.

See, that's deflection. No bucket was referenced earlier in the debate, and I have no idea what metaphorical "bucket" I am supposedly in; either with you or sebster.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

You're in the same bucket.

See, that's deflection. No bucket was referenced earlier in the debate, and I have no idea what metaphorical "bucket" I am supposedly in; either with you or sebster.

Touché.

The point that Seb was missing was that under these proposed rules, activities such as candidate forums, get out the vote efforts, and voter registration would now be considered “political activity” for 501(c)(4) groups.

Groups like the Chamber of Commerce and Unions (under the same type) CAN engage in these activities as it's still kosher.

Honestly, I say we leave charities alone for now and go after the actual big fish like the NFL, NBA, and MLB.

Personally my view is that the IRS would be justified if they treated all of the supposedly non-political 501(c)(4)s. A tea party group is blatantly political. There are progressive groups that are blatantly political. They should not be tax exempt. Now the only question that has yet been answered for me is did they go after all groups equally or not because, IIRC, they did no after progressive groups too.

I would say this is less of a sign of political corruption and more of a sign that if a tax law shouldn't be so hard to interpret.

Honestly this is making a mountain out of a mole hill here, I don't see how this is bad as long as all the groups under the law were treated with the same scorn. And I can't say that I would blame the IRS for getting active about Tea Party groups, since there are more than a few which are a threat to the overall functioning of the government by backing canadites like Ted Cruz.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I would say this is less of a sign of political corruption and more of a sign that if a tax law shouldn't be so hard to interpret.

Honestly this is making a mountain out of a mole hill here, I don't see how this is bad as long as all the groups under the law were treated with the same scorn. And I can't say that I would blame the IRS for getting active about Tea Party groups, since there are more than a few which are a threat to the overall functioning of the government by backing canadites like Ted Cruz.

You might wanna do some reading...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2013/07/16/as-debate-into-tax-exempt-scandal-continues-heres-a-timeline-of-who-knew-what-and-when/

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

You're in the same bucket.

See, that's deflection. No bucket was referenced earlier in the debate, and I have no idea what metaphorical "bucket" I am supposedly in; either with you or sebster.

You should also check to see if there's a hole in it.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Personally my view is that the IRS would be justified if they treated all of the supposedly non-political 501(c)(4)s. A tea party group is blatantly political. There are progressive groups that are blatantly political. They should not be tax exempt. Now the only question that has yet been answered for me is did they go after all groups equally or not because, IIRC, they did no after progressive groups too.

And that should be the crux of the matter. If I recall some progressive groups were investigated by the IRS. But they were a distinct minority, and subject to lower levels of scrutiny.

 whembly wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I would say this is less of a sign of political corruption and more of a sign that if a tax law shouldn't be so hard to interpret.

Honestly this is making a mountain out of a mole hill here, I don't see how this is bad as long as all the groups under the law were treated with the same scorn. And I can't say that I would blame the IRS for getting active about Tea Party groups, since there are more than a few which are a threat to the overall functioning of the government by backing canadites like Ted Cruz.

You might wanna do some reading...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2013/07/16/as-debate-into-tax-exempt-scandal-continues-heres-a-timeline-of-who-knew-what-and-when/

The timeline is interesting but It still does not address weather we only know tea party groups were the only ones targeted.

Again this reeks more of a bureaucratic screw up that people in the IRS are uneasy about because they don't want to admit they misinterpreted. The leap that this is some how a evil right off the bat when this could just be incompetence tells me that people are reaching for something here.

I have a question, when it comes to the government is it innocent until proven guilty? Or guilty until proven innocent?

Prove to me in a court of law that were was abuse, and I will grant you my out rage.

But until then I will cast no judgement. Offer up a reason? yes, but I feel that the constant fishing for the next watergate is not only destructive, but divisive.

 Alexzandvar wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I would say this is less of a sign of political corruption and more of a sign that if a tax law shouldn't be so hard to interpret.

Honestly this is making a mountain out of a mole hill here, I don't see how this is bad as long as all the groups under the law were treated with the same scorn. And I can't say that I would blame the IRS for getting active about Tea Party groups, since there are more than a few which are a threat to the overall functioning of the government by backing canadites like Ted Cruz.

You might wanna do some reading...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2013/07/16/as-debate-into-tax-exempt-scandal-continues-heres-a-timeline-of-who-knew-what-and-when/

The timeline is interesting but It still does not address weather we only know tea party groups were the only ones targeted.

Again this reeks more of a bureaucratic screw up that people in the IRS are uneasy about because they don't want to admit they misinterpreted. The leap that this is some how a evil right off the bat when this could just be incompetence tells me that people are reaching for something here.

I have a question, when it comes to the government is it innocent until proven guilty? Or guilty until proven innocent?

Prove to me in a court of law that were was abuse, and I will grant you my out rage.

But until then I will cast no judgement. Offer up a reason? yes, but I feel that the constant fishing for the next watergate is not only destructive, but divisive.

I've always stated that this issue is a bigger "scandal" than what transpired in Benghazi (or even Watergate).

You want proof? Put your thinking cap on... will ya?

You know, originally the story went that it was rogue agents in the Cincinnati office of the IRS that had begun the persecution of conservative groups back in 2010, but that Obama had only learned about it in the media in May 2013, when everyone else heard about it.

We have shown how the President’s narrative, and that of his spokesmen, has “evolved.”

You got Lois Lerner pleading the Fifth Amendment, was placed on administrative leave, and then retired. We've got reports that the American Center for Law and Justice is suing the IRS, with complaint that cites Lerner and other ranking officials of “repeatedly using nonofficial, unsecure, personal email accounts to conduct official IRS business, including sending tax return information and official classified documents to non-agency email addresses, and that Defendant Lerner alone accumulated more than 1,600 pages of emails and documents related to official IRS business in a nonofficial, unsecure, personal email account, including almost 30 pages of confidential taxpayer information.” Which, in itself, is illegal as feth.

Rep. Dave Camp, as chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, he has come into the possession of a 2012 email that reveals that Lois Lerner and four other senior IRS officials were discussing the 501(c)4 regulations in June 2012 in the run-up to the 2012 elections. They specifically refer to “potentially addressing” these organizations “off-plan” in 2013. Off-plan, Rep. Camp explained in his press release, means “not to be published on the public schedule.”

Yet we are supposed to believe that these attempts, were due to the complexity of the law or some rogue agents? Or, as you just said nothing more than folks looking for the next watergate?

Rep. Trey Gowdy pointed out just last week, that NONE of the 41 clients represented by the American Center for Law and Justice that is suing the IRS over its actions “had been interviewed by any of the 13 Justice Department investigators during the six months of the investigation.”

None.

Zero.

Filtch.

Nada.

I mean, if you want to put this thing to rest, you'd want to interview all parties... no?

Regardless... you haven't answered my earlier question, so I'll restate:
Had this occurred during a Republican administration, whereas this time, the targeting were specfically liberal groups.... what's your response?

 whembly wrote:
I've always stated that this issue is a bigger "scandal" than what transpired in Benghazi (or even Watergate).

I'm going to have to disagree with you here whembly. Watergate was a much bigger scandal.

Edit:

Regardless... you haven't answered my earlier question, so I'll restate:
Had this occurred during a Republican administration, whereas this time, the targeting were specfically liberal groups.... what's your response?

Although the question was not directed at me I want to answer it. They are somewhat justified. The groups are blatantly political, and thus should not be tax exempt.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I've always stated that this issue is a bigger "scandal" than what transpired in Benghazi (or even Watergate).

I'm going to have to disagree with you here whembly. Watergate was a much bigger scandal.

What?

Depends...

Watergate was about influencing the elections.

IRS Scandalgate, if true, is... guess what? Influencing the elections. Only that, instead of going after political opponents (ie, Watergate), the IRS Scandalgate targeted "we the people".

Bigger, yea. But also cooler. Any scandal with G Gordon Liddy in the middle of it is was cool. Somebody get that man a lighter!

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I've always stated that this issue is a bigger "scandal" than what transpired in Benghazi (or even Watergate).

I'm going to have to disagree with you here whembly. Watergate was a much bigger scandal.

What?

Depends...

Watergate was about influencing the elections.

IRS Scandalgate, if true, is... guess what? Influencing the elections. Only that, instead of going after political opponents (ie, Watergate), the IRS Scandalgate targeted "we the people".

I would hardly call tea party groups "we the people" seeing as they are only a specific, and compairitvly rather small, part of America, but that's just my opinion. I guess your reasoning makes sense.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Regardless... you haven't answered my earlier question, so I'll restate:
Had this occurred during a Republican administration, whereas this time, the targeting were specfically liberal groups.... what's your response?

Although the question was not directed at me I want to answer it. They are somewhat justified. The groups are blatantly political, and thus should not be tax exempt.

Well, do you consider Media Matters blatantly political?

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Regardless... you haven't answered my earlier question, so I'll restate:
Had this occurred during a Republican administration, whereas this time, the targeting were specfically liberal groups.... what's your response?

Although the question was not directed at me I want to answer it. They are somewhat justified. The groups are blatantly political, and thus should not be tax exempt.

Well, do you consider Media Matters blatantly political?

No idea. Just a second, I have to look up what media matters is.
Edit: Looked at their main page. Just from that I'd say yes.