Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I'm unaware that I ever made the argument that Obama should no longer be allowed to make political statements. If you could show me where I did I would be much obliged

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I think it is fair comment to say that publicly slurring individuals who is donating to your opponent, using derogatory names for political rivals, implying that bodies with differing political views are under foreign influence and implying that they have something to hide (all seemingly without evidence) could all very easily been seen to be breaches of integrity, and not what most people would consider "political statements". Especially when running for the highest office in the land.

 dogma wrote:


All of those things are par for the course in American politics.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

probably isn't beneficial to society at all, but it doesn't reduce the value or impact of free speech.

So there is no point in silencing it then.

It starts with good intentions. Then its silencing your opposition.

Yes, you're right, there is no point in silencing anyone. Which is why no one has suggested that. All azazel did was argue that there's speech that isn't beneficial for society, not that anyone should be silenced. That's the strawman Fraz set up and ran with.

 dogma wrote:
The article you quoted is making that argument. It is explicitly claiming that Obama's political statement are tacit to ordering the IRS to unjustly investigate Mr. Vandersloot, and that his statements are therefore indicative of operating without absolute integrity.

 dogma wrote:
Wait, you're a recent immigrant right? If so that would explain why you're so upset.

All of those things are par for the course in American politics.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 dogma wrote:
The article you quoted is making that argument. It is explicitly claiming that Obama's political statement are tacit to ordering the IRS to unjustly investigate Mr. Vandersloot, and that his statements are therefore indicative of operating without absolute integrity.

So public smears, name calling are now all political statements?

Dreadclaw69 wrote: I'm sure school teachers are now trembling in their boots because they can't tell off Little Timmy for saying Sarah is a "Poopy head" as that is clearly now political speech.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:If you think it is acceptable for public figures to name call, and make baseless accusations that is your prerogative. Most people expect somewhat better conduct from their elected representatives.

The term political statement is used to refer to any act or non-verbal form of communication that is intended to influence a decision to be made for or by a political party.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I must be confused then - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_statement

The term political statement is used to refer to any act or non-verbal form of communication that is intended to influence a decision to be made for or by a political party.

So if accusing donors of wrong doing is a legitimate form of political speech why was there uproar over Obama being called a liar by Joe Wilson?

The Treasury Department’s inspector general told senior Treasury officials in June 2012 he was investigating the Internal Revenue Service’s screening of politically active organizations seeking tax exemptions, disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Whembly: Could you please stop altering font sizes? Every time you do it, my eyes automatically drift away from your post, because I prefer to read things that do not resemble geocities websites from 1996

 whembly wrote:

Obama's claim that he "didn't know" until last Friday is looking... a bit of a stretch.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Obama's claim that he "didn't know" until last Friday is looking... a bit of a stretch.

I think your claim that Obama is best friends with every "senior official" is a bit of a stretch.

It definitely seems like you've already decided how this story is going to go and you're just cramming anything in there that looks like it will link the pieces together.

 whembly wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Obama's claim that he "didn't know" until last Friday is looking... a bit of a stretch.

I think your claim that Obama is best friends with every "senior official" is a bit of a stretch.

It definitely seems like you've already decided how this story is going to go and you're just cramming anything in there that looks like it will link the pieces together.

Where did I say they're best friends?

I only pointing out that they're not "low level employees" as it was originally reported.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

There are tens of thousands of "senior officials" in the federal government.

 whembly wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

There are tens of thousands of "senior officials" in the federal government.

?
That many general counsel of the Treasury Department?

o.O

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

There are tens of thousands of "senior officials" in the federal government.

?
That many general counsel of the Treasury Department?

o.O

You said obama must know them because they are "senior official"s.

There are way too many senior officials for Obama to know all of them. "Senior Official" could be middle management.

Bob Woodward on Friday said the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups had “not yet” risen to the level of Watergate.
“It’s a big mess, obviously,” Woodward said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “I know there have been these comparisons to Watergate. I would say not yet.”

The Washington Post reporter who pursued Watergate did compare the Benghazi controversy to the story that marked his career.

Woodward said the scrubbing of administration talking points in the days after the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, reminded him of Watergate. (whembly: !!!)

“I have it to go back 40 years to Watergate when Nixon put out his edited transcripts of the conversations and he personally went through them and said, ‘let’s not tell this, let’s not show this,’ ” Woodward said. “I would not dismiss Benghazi. It’s a very serious issue. As people keep saying, four people were killed.”

Woodward said the federal government’s talking points as a whole should be done away with.

“Talking points, as we know, are like legal briefs. They’re an argument on one side. We need to get rid of talking points and they need to put out statements or papers that are truth documents.”

The Obama administration over the last two days has tried to get out front of a series of controversies that threaten to sink Obama’s second term.

The White House has released new emails on the internal Benghazi discussions, and Obama demanded the resignation of the acting head of the IRS. On Thursday, he appointed a longtime budget official to serving as the new acting commissioner.

Some Republicans have compared Obama and his administration to President Nixon, who resigned over Watergate.

So far, there has been no evidence that Obama knew about the IRS controversy before it became public a week ago. Obama on Thursday said he only learned about it from news reports.

Woodward has clashed on numerous occasions with the White House over the last year. His book, The Price of Politics, painted an unflattering portrait of Obama’s leadership during the 2011 debt ceiling negotiations.

And late last year, Woodward insinuated that a “very senior person” at the White House had threatened him over his criticism of Obama’s handling of the sequester. The email was later revealed to be a benign correspondence with White House economic adviser Gene Sperling, and Woodward later walked the allegations back.

The inspector general gave Republicans some fodder Friday when he divulged that he informed the Treasury’s general counsel he was auditing the I.R.S.’s screening of politically active groups seeking tax exemptions on June 4, 2012. He told Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin “shortly after,” he said. That meant Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So public smears, name calling are now all political statements?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I'm sure school teachers are now trembling in their boots because they can't tell off Little Timmy for saying Sarah is a "Poopy head" as that is clearly now political speech.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

If you think it is acceptable for public figures to name call, and make baseless accusations that is your prerogative. Most people expect somewhat better conduct from their elected representatives.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So rather than actually deal with my arguments (a recurring theme for you) you dismiss them out of hand, and decide to play the player rather than the ball. Nothing like keeping it classy.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I must be confused then - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_statement

The term political statement is used to refer to any act or non-verbal form of communication that is intended to influence a decision to be made for or by a political party.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So if accusing donors of wrong doing is a legitimate form of political speech why was there uproar over Obama being called a liar by Joe Wilson?

 whembly wrote:
The New York Times made an interesting observation:

The Treasury Department’s inspector general told senior Treasury officials in June 2012 he was investigating the Internal Revenue Service’s screening of politically active organizations seeking tax exemptions, disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

I'm pretty sure that these "senior Treasury officials" are not strangers to the President. These officials knew five months before the election.

They are not "low-level" flunkies...

Obama's claim that he "didn't know" until last Friday is looking... a bit of a stretch.

Maybe Obama was too busy campaigning?
edit: added missing link.

 streamdragon wrote:

 whembly wrote:
The New York Times made an interesting observation:

The Treasury Department’s inspector general told senior Treasury officials in June 2012 he was investigating the Internal Revenue Service’s screening of politically active organizations seeking tax exemptions, disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

I'm pretty sure that these "senior Treasury officials" are not strangers to the President. These officials knew five months before the election.

They are not "low-level" flunkies...

Obama's claim that he "didn't know" until last Friday is looking... a bit of a stretch.

Maybe Obama was too busy campaigning?
edit: added missing link.

Couple things:

1. When the IG told someone they were launching an investigation is meaningless. The actual important time frame is when they deliver their report, which may or may not contain any actual findings. In this case, it likely did. But it's when THAT was given to "senior officials" that is important, not when he said he was launching the investigation. Every department and agency has an Office of the Inspector General (OIG). It's basically Internal Affairs for government agencies, and they launch investigations literally all the time. That's what they do, it's their job. Again, the important part is the final report. Do we know when/if that was finished and handed in?

2. You mention in another post (that I neglected to multi-quote apparently) that these "senior officials" was General Counsel. Like the OIG, most agencies maintain and Office of General Counsel (OGC). This is basically a collection of lawyers who legal expertise pertains to the subjects at hands. ATR would have business specialists and the like, although each OGC does maintain a cadre of non-specialists. These guys are indeed low level flunkies. These guys rarely, if ever, go near the Agency secretaries, let alone the POTUS. For OIG to come to OGC and say "hey, we're investigating x because we suspect y" isn't exactly uncommon. OGC's main purpose is to make sure agency staff is operating within the confines of the law, and to answer legal questions about government policies and procedure. These aren't the guys who end up in court rooms at all.

So pretty much that article is largely a non-story, dressed up and using specific buzz words, but with no actual oomph behind it. The IRS OIG went to the IRS OGC and let them know they thought something was being done incorrectly. This is, even despite the scandal, not news and most certainly not something that goes all the way to the POTUS. Well, not unless the OIG report is exceedingly scathing, but is is surprisingly rare that something actually requires expedition through the POTUS himself.

To draw a (probably crappy) comparison to the private sector, it's not like the CEO of a bank is informed every time a bank teller somewhere is caught sneaking change. The matter is usually handled locally and without the need to "take it all the way to the top".

CINCINNATI, OH (FOX19) -
Continuing our exclusive coverage of the IRS scandal, FOX19 has obtained documents of a fifth Cincinnati IRS agent who reportedly came after a pro-life group in 2009.

The group was asked about prayer meetings, and the content of signs held up outside Planned Parenthood.

According to documents obtained by FOX19, the group in question is 'Coalition for Life', a group based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Coalition for Life stated it was 'organized for charitable, religious and educational activities', all of which would allow it to qualify as an exempt organization under 501(c)(3) status.

Over 150 pages of back-and-forth took place in 2009, prior to the dates given by the IRS for when so called 'rogue' agents began targeting conservative groups.

Testimony in Washington on Friday claimed it began in 2010 after a surge of Tea Party and Liberty groups began seeking 501(c)(4) status.

"In 2010, the inappropriate criteria that singled out organizations for tax exempt status by name was developed by what office, and where are those employees located?" Steven Miller was asked during a hearing on Friday, the former acting IRS Commissioner.

"For the most part, they are located in Cincinnati," he replied.

So, this latest revelation does not correlate with the timeline given in Washington as testimony on Friday.

 CptJake wrote:
Indicator this may have started earlier than possible.

CINCINNATI, OH (FOX19) -
Continuing our exclusive coverage of the IRS scandal, FOX19 has obtained documents of a fifth Cincinnati IRS agent who reportedly came after a pro-life group in 2009.

The group was asked about prayer meetings, and the content of signs held up outside Planned Parenthood.

According to documents obtained by FOX19, the group in question is 'Coalition for Life', a group based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Coalition for Life stated it was 'organized for charitable, religious and educational activities', all of which would allow it to qualify as an exempt organization under 501(c)(3) status.

Over 150 pages of back-and-forth took place in 2009, prior to the dates given by the IRS for when so called 'rogue' agents began targeting conservative groups.

Testimony in Washington on Friday claimed it began in 2010 after a surge of Tea Party and Liberty groups began seeking 501(c)(4) status.

"In 2010, the inappropriate criteria that singled out organizations for tax exempt status by name was developed by what office, and where are those employees located?" Steven Miller was asked during a hearing on Friday, the former acting IRS Commissioner.

"For the most part, they are located in Cincinnati," he replied.

So, this latest revelation does not correlate with the timeline given in Washington as testimony on Friday.

From a Cincinnati Fox affiliate: http://www.fox19.com/story/22286522/rc-5th-cincinnati-irs-agent-allegedly-connected-to-scandal

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

CINCINNATI, OH (FOX19) -
Coalition for Life stated it was 'organized for charitable, religious and educational activities', all of which would allow it to qualify as an exempt organization under 501(c)(3) status.

The group was asked about prayer meetings, and the content of signs held up outside Planned Parenthood.

A healthcare provider has sued the Internal Revenue Service and 15 of its agents, charging they wrongfully seized 60 million medical records from 10 million Americans.

The name of the provider is not yet known, United Press International said. But Courthouse News Service said the suit claims the agency violated the Fourth Amendment in 2011, when agents executed a search warrant for financial data on one employee – and that led to the seizure of information on 10 million, including state judges.

The search warrant did not specify that the IRS could take medical information, UPI said. And information technology officials warned the IRS about the potential to violate medical privacy laws before agents executed the warrant, the complaint said, as reported by UPI.

“Despite knowing that these medical records were not within the scope of the warrant, defendants threatened to ‘rip’ the servers containing the medical data out of the building if IT personnel would not voluntarily hand them over,” the complaint states, UPI reported.

 azazel the cat wrote:
(I've never been a huge fan of Lamb.)

The White House's chief lawyer learned weeks ago that an audit of the Internal Revenue Service likely would show that agency employees inappropriately targeted conservative groups, a senior White House official said Sunday.

The White House's chief lawyer was told in the middle of April that an audit of the IRS would show IRS employees inappropriately targeted conservative groups. Peter Nicholas has details. Photo: Getty Images
That disclosure has prompted a debate over whether the president should have been notified at that time.

In the week of April 22, the Office of the White House Counsel and its head, Kathryn Ruemmler, were told by Treasury Department attorneys that an inspector general's report was nearing completion, the White House official said. In that conversation, Ms. Ruemmler learned that "a small number of line IRS employees had improperly scrutinized certain…organizations by using words like 'tea party' and 'patriot,' " the official said.

President Barack Obama said last week he learned about the controversy at the same time as the public, on May 10, when an IRS official revealed it to a conference of lawyers. The president's statement drew criticism, focusing attention on his management style and whether he has kept himself sufficiently informed about the agencies under his authority.

Others, including veterans of previous scandals, said the counsel—whose role is to advise the president on all legal matters concerning his job and the White House—was right to avoid telling Mr. Obama about the audit's early findings. Doing so could have caused a new storm by creating the appearance of meddling in an independent investigation that hadn't yet concluded, former officials said.

The White House, which declined to make Ms. Ruemmler available for comment Sunday, wouldn't say whether she shared the information with anyone else in the senior administration staff.

The new detail doesn't help answer some fundamental questions about the IRS scandal, including how it began and who, if anyone, in the administration was aware of the severity of the inspector general's probe before last November's presidential election.

Instead, it focuses attention on the White House's handling of the matter, which has blown up into the kind of crisis that could persist.

When findings are so potentially damaging, the president should immediately be informed, said Lanny Davis, who served as a special counsel to President Bill Clinton.

White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer speaking on CBS's 'Face the Nation' on Sunday.
Of the controversies dogging Mr. Obama, including the terrorist assault in Benghazi, Libya, and the Justice Department's seizure of phone records of Associated Press journalists, the IRS case "is the most nuclear issue of all," Mr. Davis said. It involves the "misuse of the IRS" and "anyone who knew about this a few weeks ago and didn't tell the president shouldn't be in the White House," Mr. Davis said.

On the Sunday political talk shows, the White House rejected suggestions that the president should have taken action before the inspector general's office released its report May 14, a few days after the probe's findings were disclosed in news accounts.

Dan Pfeiffer, a White House senior adviser, said on NBC that the matter "was handled in the exact appropriate way. As I said, we do not ever do anything to give the appearance of interference in an investigation. What would be an actual scandal would be if we somehow were involved" in such interference.

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew was notified in a March 2013 meeting with the Treasury inspector general for the IRS that an audit was "forthcoming," according to the Treasury Department. But at that meeting, the inspector general didn't provide details of his findings, the Treasury said.

Jack Quinn, who served as White House counsel under former President Bill Clinton, said Ms. Ruemmler's office acted correctly in not sharing the information directly with the president.

If she had instead gotten "involved and called people over to the White House for a full briefing to know all the details, you know what we'd be talking about now? We'd be talking about whether she had tried to interfere with the IG's investigation," Mr. Quinn said.

John Podesta, a former White House chief of staff under Mr. Clinton, said: "The worst thing is if you do anything that is perceived to be interfering with an independent investigation" especially if it isn't fully complete. "That gets you in such trouble your head spins."

Republicans are expected to zero in on the question of who in the Obama administration's senior ranks knew about the IRS's targeting of conservative groups, especially before the November election last year.

Republican lawmakers on House oversight committees are pressing the investigation, with more hearings set for this week.

"Exactly who in the administration knew what about the IRS targeting is one of the key outstanding questions," said Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), chairman of a House oversight committee that plans to hold a hearing Wednesday on the matter, in an emailed statement.

"In waiting so long to address wrongdoing and inform the public, President Obama and his administration seem more preoccupied with having deniability than quickly addressing serious wrongdoing," Mr. Issa added.

In his comments Sunday, Mr. Pfeiffer suggested that more personnel changes could come at the IRS, after last week's ouster of acting commissioner Steven Miller by the president. Mr. Pfeiffer also went on the offensive, saying that White House cooperation with GOP investigators has its limits and that Mr. Obama won't take part in "partisan fishing expeditions."