A series of letters suggests that senior IRS official Lois Lerner was directly involved in the agency’s targeting of conservative groups as recently as April 2012, more than nine months after she first learned of the activity.

 whembly wrote:
Yup... she's definitely strategizing for full immunity...
Lerner's Signature is on Letters to Many Groups Targeted by IRS:

A series of letters suggests that senior IRS official Lois Lerner was directly involved in the agency’s targeting of conservative groups as recently as April 2012, more than nine months after she first learned of the activity.

IRS Scandal: The inexplicable raid nearly two years ago on a guitar maker for using allegedly illegal wood that its competitors also used was another targeting by this administration of its political enemies.

On Aug. 24, 2011, federal agents executed four search warrants on Gibson Guitar Corp. facilities in Nashville and Memphis, Tenn., and seized several pallets of wood, electronic files and guitars. One of the top makers of acoustic and electric guitars, including the iconic Les Paul introduced in 1952, Gibson was accused of using wood illegally obtained in violation of the century-old Lacey Act, which outlaws trafficking in flora and fauna the harvesting of which had broken foreign laws.

In one raid, the feds hauled away ebony fingerboards, alleging they violated Madagascar law. Gibson responded by obtaining the sworn word of the African island's government that no law had been broken.

In another raid, the feds found materials imported from India, claiming they too moved across the globe in violation of Indian law.

Gibson's response was that the feds had simply misinterpreted Indian law.

Interestingly, one of Gibson's leading competitors is C.F. Martin & Co. According to C.F. Martin's catalog, several of their guitars contain "East Indian Rosewood," which is the exact same wood in at least 10 of Gibson's guitars. So why were they not also raided and their inventory of foreign wood seized?

Grossly underreported at the time was the fact that Gibson's chief executive, Henry Juszkiewicz, contributed to Republican politicians.

Recent donations have included $2,000 to Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and $1,500 to Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.

By contrast, Chris Martin IV, the Martin & Co. CEO, is a long-time Democratic supporter, with $35,400 in contributions to Democratic candidates and the Democratic National Committee over the past couple of election cycles.

"We feel that Gibson was inappropriately targeted," Juszkiewicz said at the time, adding the matter "could have been addressed with a simple contact (from) a caring human being representing the government. Instead, the government used violent and hostile means."

That includes what Gibson described as "two hostile raids on its factories by agents carrying weapons and attired in SWAT gear where employees were forced out of the premises, production was shut down, goods were seized as contraband and threats were made that would have forced the business to close."

Gibson, fearing a bankrupting legal battle, settled and agreed to pay a $300,000 penalty to the U.S. Government. It also agreed to make a "community service payment" of $50,000 to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation — to be used on research projects or tree-conservation activities.

The feds in return agreed to let Gibson resume importing wood while they sought "clarification" from India.

The feds say they acted to save the environment from greedy plunderers. America is a trivial importer of rosewood from Madagascar and India. Ninety-five percent of it goes to China, where it is used to make luxury items like $800,000 beds. So putting Gibson out of business wasn't going to do a whole lot to save their forests.

Juszkiewicz' claim that his company was "inappropriately targeted" is eerily similar to the claims by Tea Party, conservative, pro-life and religious groups that they were targeted by the IRS for special scrutiny because they sought to exercise their First Amendment rights to band together in vocal opposition to the administration's policies and the out-of-control growth of government and its power.

The Gibson Guitar raid, the IRS intimidation of Tea Party groups and the fraudulently obtained warrant naming Fox News reporter James Rosen as an "aider, abettor, co-conspirator" in stealing government secrets are but a few examples of the abuse of power by the Obama administration to intimidate those on its enemies list.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The more I read that, what happened, and the resolution for Gibson the more I scratch my head.

Maybe I've got it wrong but; Gibson is raided by federal agents accusing them of importing contraband wood, federal agents threaten to close Gibson, fearing bankruptcy Gibson bite the bullet and accept the fines..... but the federal agents say that Gibson can continue to import the same wood that was the cause of the raid while they get clarification from India as to the wood's provenience

Surely the federal agents should have made certain that the wood was contraband before the raid. Fining someone before you've established this fact sounds somewhat sketchy

The White House insists President Obama is "outraged" by the "inappropriate" targeting and harassment of conservative groups. If true, it's a remarkable turnaround for a man who helped pioneer those tactics.

On Aug. 21, 2008, the conservative American Issues Project ran an ad highlighting ties between candidate Obama and Bill Ayers, formerly of the Weather Underground. The Obama campaign and supporters were furious, and they pressured TV stations to pull the ad—a common-enough tactic in such ad spats.

What came next was not common. Bob Bauer, general counsel for the campaign (and later general counsel for the White House), on the same day wrote to the criminal division of the Justice Department, demanding an investigation into AIP, "its officers and directors," and its "anonymous donors." Mr. Bauer claimed that the nonprofit, as a 501(c)(4), was committing a "knowing and willful violation" of election law, and wanted "action to enforce against criminal violations."

AIP gave Justice a full explanation as to why it was not in violation. It said that it operated exactly as liberal groups like Naral Pro-Choice did. It noted that it had disclosed its donor, Texas businessman Harold Simmons. Mr. Bauer's response was a second letter to Justice calling for the prosecution of Mr. Simmons. He sent a third letter on Sept. 8, again smearing the "sham" AIP's "illegal electoral purpose."

Also on Sept. 8, Mr. Bauer complained to the Federal Election Commission about AIP and Mr. Simmons. He demanded that AIP turn over certain tax documents to his campaign (his right under IRS law), then sent a letter to AIP further hounding it for confidential information (to which he had no legal right).

The Bauer onslaught was a big part of a new liberal strategy to thwart the rise of conservative groups. In early August 2008, the New York Times trumpeted the creation of a left-wing group (a 501(c)4) called Accountable America. Founded by Obama supporter and liberal activist Tom Mattzie, the group—as the story explained—would start by sending "warning" letters to 10,000 GOP donors, "hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions." The letters would alert "right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives." As Mr. Mattzie told Mother Jones: "We're going to put them at risk."

The Bauer letters were the Obama campaign's high-profile contribution to this effort—though earlier, in the spring of 2008, Mr. Bauer filed a complaint with the FEC against the American Leadership Project, a group backing Hillary Clinton in the primary. "There's going to be a reckoning here," he had warned publicly. "It's going to be rough—it's going to be rough on the officers, it's going to be rough on the employees, it's going to be rough on the donors. . . Whether it's at the FEC or in a broader criminal inquiry, those donors will be asked questions." The campaign similarly attacked a group supporting John Edwards.

American Leadership head (and Democrat) Jason Kinney would rail that Mr. Bauer had gone from "credible legal authority" to "political hatchet man"—but the damage was done. As Politico reported in August 2008, Mr. Bauer's words had "the effect of scaring [Clinton and Edwards] donors and consultants," even if they hadn't yet "result[ed] in any prosecution."

As general counsel to the Obama re-election campaign, Mr. Bauer used the same tactics on pro-Romney groups. The Obama campaign targeted private citizens who had donated to Romney groups. Democratic senators demanded that the IRS investigate these organizations.

None of this proves that Mr. Obama was involved in the IRS targeting of conservative nonprofits. But it does help explain how we got an environment in which the IRS thought this was acceptable.

The rise of conservative organizations (to match liberal groups that had long played in politics), and their effectiveness in the 2004 election (derided broadly by liberals as "swift boating"), led to a new and organized campaign in 2008 to chill conservative donors and groups via the threat of government investigation and prosecution. The tone in any organization—a charity, a corporation, the U.S. government—is set at the top.

This history also casts light on White House claims that it was clueless about the IRS's targeting. As Huffington Post's Howard Fineman wrote this week: "With two winning presidential campaigns built on successful grassroots fundraising, with a former White House counsel (in 2010-11) who is one of the Democrats' leading experts on campaign law (Bob Bauer), with former top campaign officials having been ensconced as staffers in the White House . . . it's hard to imagine that the Obama inner circle was oblivious to the issue of what the IRS was doing in Cincinnati." More like inconceivable.

And this history exposes the left's hollow claim that the IRS mess rests on Citizens United. The left was targeting conservative groups and donors well before the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling on independent political expenditures by corporations.

If the country wants to get to the bottom of the IRS scandal, it must first remember the context for this abuse. That context leads to this White House.

Relapse wrote:
More and more the Obama administration is showing itself to be out of control.

Major news outlets in recent days have reported that U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is raising money from the private sector—including from health-care executives—for use by a private entity that is helping to implement ObamaCare. The entity, Enroll America, is run by a former White House aide.

The Washington Post quoted an HHS spokesman last week saying, "We requested additional money [from Congress] . . . but we didn't receive any additional funding for the exchanges. So we had to come up with Plan B."

My immediate thought was: Isn't "Plan B" what got Oliver North in trouble during the 1980s?

While working in the Reagan administration, Col. North was accused of using money raised in an arms-for-hostages swap with Iran to fund and work with private organizations providing military support to rebel armies in Nicaragua. North was found to have done this even though Congress had refused to provide funding and prohibited spending any available funds for such purposes.

A select Joint Committee of Congress investigated what became known as Iran-Contra. The problem was not just where the money came from, but also where and how it was spent. Article I of the U.S. Constitution does not permit government officials to spend money that Congress has refused to authorize or appropriate. Federal laws such as the Anti-Deficiency Act make this behavior unlawful.

There is, of course, a difference between Nicaraguan rebels and health care. With Iran-Contra, Congress had also prohibited support for the rebels, while in the case of health-care funding, Congress has refused to provide the amounts that the administration has asked for. But the principle and the legal prohibitions are the same.

The report of the bipartisan majority of the Iran-Contra Select Committee summarized the law in November 1987: "The Constitution does prohibit receipt and collection of such funds by this government absent an appropriation. This appropriation may not be evaded by use of a nominally private entity if the entity is in reality an arm of the government and the government is able to direct how the money is spent."

The report also said: "Congress's exclusive control over the expenditure of funds cannot legally be evaded though the use of gifts or donations to the executive branch. Were it otherwise, a president whose appropriation requests were rejected by Congress could raise money through private sources or from other countries for armies, military actions, arms systems or even domestic programs." Note: even domestic programs.

In July 1987, President Reagan's Secretary of State, George Shultz, testified before Congress regarding the Iran-Contra affair: "You cannot spend funds the Congress doesn't either authorize you to obtain or appropriate. That is what the Constitution says, and we have to stick to it. Now, I will join everybody in saying that sometimes it gets doggone frustrating with what the Congress does or doesn't do, and I can be critical. However, that's the system, and we have to accept it, and then we have an argument about it and try to persuade you otherwise."

Our country's Founders—at least most of them—did not want a king. So they included in the Constitution a Congress and a Bill of Rights to curb executive power. Congress's exclusive power of the purse is the strongest such curb.

The Obama administration is not the first to chafe under these restraints, but it has been among the most flagrant in ignoring them.

To avoid scrutiny by appropriations committees, the administration seems to have created more czars than the Romanovs. It has propounded far-reaching executive orders—on immigration, for example—and used a simple waiver authority to impose new federal education mandates on states, in effect, turning the U.S. Department of Education into a national school board. To circumvent the Senate's constitutional role to advise and consent on nominations, President Obama has made so-called recess appointments when the Senate wasn't in recess—appointments that two federal appellate courts agreed would be unconstitutional.

Last week, chairmen and ranking Republicans on five congressional committees in both houses of Congress asked the Government Accountability Office to find out the facts. Is Ms. Sebelius raising funds for a private entity and then coordinating with that entity to do something Congress has refused to authorize, or for which it has refused to appropriate funds? And is she raising money from organizations she regulates, in violation of ethics laws?

If the money being raised by Ms. Sebelius is being spent to do an end-run around Congress, then the Obama administration had better brush up on its Iran-Contra history.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I wonder what "Plan B" is

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So we aren't allowed to speculate on events as they happen? I would have thought that invoking the right not to self incriminate could reasonably be seen as not wanting to say something that you could later be prosecuted for by the Department of Justice.

You're perfectly welcome to speculate on events as they happen.

Just don't go and y'know...try to wrap it up as though you know what you're talking about or are a media presenter.

Maybe you have another slant on her pleading the 5th that you would like to share with us, you may be seeing something that others are not.

There's no "slant" about it. She plead the 5th. That's her right. Why she did it?
Who knows at this point.

 Frazzled wrote:
Looks like persons outside of the Cincinnati office may have been involved.
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/28/18563008-irs-higher-ups-requested-info-on-conservative-groups-letters-show

Additional scrutiny of conservative organizations’ activities by the IRS did not solely originate in the agency’s Cincinnati office, with requests for information coming from other offices and often bearing the signatures of higher-ups at the agency, according to attorneys representing some of the targeted groups. At least one letter requesting information about one of the groups bears the signature of Lois Lerner, the suspended director of the IRS Exempt Organizations department in Washington.

Jay Sekulow, an attorney representing 27 conservative political advocacy organizations that applied to the Internal Revenue Service for tax-exempt status, provided some of the letters to NBC News. He said the groups’ contacts with the IRS prove that the practices went beyond a few “front line” employees in the Cincinnati office, as the IRS has maintained.

“We've dealt with 15 agents, including tax law specialists -- that's lawyers -- from four different offices, including (the) Treasury (Department) in Washington, D.C.,” Sekulow said. “So the idea that this is a couple of rogue agents in Cincinnati is not correct.”
Among the letters were several that bore return IRS addresses other than Cincinnati, including "Department of the Treasury / Internal Revenue Service / Washington, D.C.," and the signatures of IRS officials higher up the chain. Two letters with "Department of the Treasury / Internal Revenue Service / Washington, D.C." letterhead were signed by "Tax Law Specialist(s)" from Exempt Organizations Technical Group 1 and Technical Group 2. Lerner’s signature, which appeared to be a stamp rather than an actual signature, appeared on a letter requesting additional information from the Ohio Liberty Council Corp.
Lerner has become one of the public faces of the controversy after refusing to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee last Wednesday, citing her Constitutional Fifth Amendment rights after reading a brief statement: “I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws, violated IRS regulations or provided false information to this or any other committee.”
She was put on administrative leave at the end of last week after reportedly refusing to resign at Obama administration’s request. She is continuing to collect federal paychecks on her almost $180,000 annual salary, though at least one Republican senator, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, is urging the agency to speed up the process and fire her.
In the two weeks since the IRS acknowledged it targeted conservative organizations seeking status as tax-exempt "social welfare" organizations for additional scrutiny, many Republicans have sought to link the agency’s actions to the White House. In an Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post on May 22, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., wrote that “the administration has been extremely creative in employing throughout the federal government the sorts of intimidation tactics that were used at the IRS.”
The White House has dismissed suggestions it was aware of the targeting, saying President Barack Obama only learned of the issue when it broke in the news on May 10. White House spokesman Jay Carney has since deflected most questions about the scandal, saying it would be inappropriate to comment until an FBI inquiry into the agency’s actions – one of five separate government investigations -- is concluded.
For its part, the IRS has declined additional comment beyond its congressional testimony -- including former IRS Commissioner Steven Miller's testimony that IRS employees didn’t have partisan motives and only made "foolish mistakes ... trying to be more efficient” -- and other previously released public statements, including its response to a Treasury inspector general (see pages 49-51) and a Q&A on 501 (c) groups it published on its website.
But attorneys for some of the targeted groups’ provided documentation and two IRS employees in the Cincinnati office made statements to NBC News that call into question parts of the official explanation Americans have heard from the IRS so far.
Sekulow, who worked with the office of the chief counsel of the IRS in the early 1980s as a trial lawyer representing the IRS on tax-exempt cases, said the number of groups he’s heard from, and the scope of the requests for information the IRS sent them, persuaded him “that this was not something that was just created at an agent level, that this was certainly higher up.”
After reviewing all the IRS communications his clients received, Sekulow said he believes the IRS was engaged in a coordinated and deliberate attempt to silence, or at least stifle conservative organizations, he told NBC News.

Sekulow also said the practices continued well after May 2012, when the IRS has claimed they had stopped. Sekulow said 10 of the organizations he represents still have not received determinations from the IRS on their applications for tax-exempt status as 501 C (1)(4) organizations. He provided NBC News with a letter the IRS sent to one of his clients on May 6 requesting more information.
'Decisions ... made in Washington'
Cleta Mitchell, another attorney representing conservative groups that allege they were targeted, said an IRS agent in Cincinnati told her a “task force” IRS office in Washington, D.C., was making the decisions about the processing of applications, and that she subsequently dealt with IRS representatives there.
“(The IRS agent in Cincinnati) told me that in fact the case would be transferred to a special task force out of Washington, and that he was told – he was the originally assigned agent – that he wasn't allowed to make decisions, the decisions were all going to be made in Washington,” Mitchell said. “I know that this process was going on in Washington because I've dealt with those people.”
One of Mitchell’s clients, Catherine Engelbrecht, founder of True the Vote, a conservative elections monitoring organization, applied for tax-exempt status for the group in July 2010. She said that when she asked the IRS two years later why it was taking so long to get a decision, agents told her Washington was to blame.
“We’ve dealt with four separate analysts and their explanation for the way our case has been handled runs the gamut from their not having another organization like True the Vote to compare to – so they had to develop new questions and new criteria -- all the way through to the fact that they were taking their orders from Washington and were waiting for Washington’s direction as to what steps to take next,” she said. “They were caught up in a process that seemed to be much bigger than Cincinnati and bigger than any single individual.”
Mitchell, Engelbrecht’s attorney, said Engelbrecht’s case also raised questions about whether the IRS had subjected some applicants to other federal government scrutiny and action, beyond their IRS application.
Engelbrecht told NBC News that soon after she filed for tax-exempt status for True the Vote, the IRS audited her personal and business taxes for the first time, and her manufacturing business was visited by two other federal agencies, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
Her tax-exempt application still hasn't been approved after three years. She's now suing the IRS.
Sekulow said he also is preparing to sue the IRS in federal court this week, on behalf of the 16 groups he represents.
“The only way to get this resolved is to go to federal court,” Sekulow said, “because that's the only thing that's going to compel the IRS to comply with the law.”
Two IRS Cincinnati employees who have talked to NBC News dispute one part of the IRS’ explanation, saying that application of inappropriate selection criteria and the extra scrutiny for Tea Party and other conservative political advocacy organizations was not the work of a few low-level “rogue” employees.
But they also have told NBC News that they believe there was no political or partisan motivation for the targeting or scrutiny.
"We're outstanding public servants, dedicated to our craft and to the public we serve,” said one current IRS Cincinnati employee contacted at home over the weekend, who agreed to speak to NBC News on the condition of anonymity. “To suggest that we're 'rogue' should be considered slander.”
Asked about the motivations for the targeting, the employee said, “I trust my management team."
Bonnie Esrig, a 38-year IRS veteran and a manager in the Cincinnati office until she retired from the IRS in January, also has told NBC News that decisions about how to handle cases came from management, and that all employees were subjected to considerable oversight. She also said that she believes there was no political or partisan motivation for the added scrutiny.

Additional scrutiny of conservative organizations’ activities by the IRS did not solely originate in the agency’s Cincinnati office, with requests for information coming from other offices and often bearing the signatures of higher-ups at the agency, according to attorneys representing some of the targeted groups.

Washington (CNN) – The Internal Revenue Service has told House GOP investigators they have identified 88 IRS employees who may have documents relevant to the congressional investigation into targeting of conservative groups, according to a congressional source familiar with the investigation.

The IRS asked these employees to preserve all the "responsive documents" on their computers, and it has been in the process of collecting it all to comply with congressional requests for information. The IRS missed its May 21st deadline to turn over documents to the House Ways and Means Committee.

The same source said the IRS argues it missed its deadline because of the scope of documents it is collecting.

 whembly wrote:
I want to know who orchestrated this profiling....because 88+ (so far) IRS agents didn't do this out of the blue.
Some serious heads need to roll.

This ain't no "few underling" going rogue...
http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/05/31/just-nearly-90-irs-employees-involved-scandal

Washington (CNN) – The Internal Revenue Service has told House GOP investigators they have identified 88 IRS employees who may have documents relevant to the congressional investigation into targeting of conservative groups, according to a congressional source familiar with the investigation.

The IRS asked these employees to preserve all the "responsive documents" on their computers, and it has been in the process of collecting it all to comply with congressional requests for information. The IRS missed its May 21st deadline to turn over documents to the House Ways and Means Committee.

The same source said the IRS argues it missed its deadline because of the scope of documents it is collecting.

Scandalpalooza
Is Team O trying to tire us out?

The Obama Scandalpalooza continues. It’s gotten so bad that some pundits have even suggested that they’re bringing everything out at once to induce “scandal fatigue” and make it all fade away. Well, maybe — there’s certainly a lot:

1) The journalist-snooping scandal: The Justice Department spied on phone records of numerous AP reporters, as well as numerous Fox News reporters — and, in at least one case, a reporter’s parents — as part of a leak-plugging investigation. In seeking the subpoenas, and to keep reporters from finding out about them, Attorney General Eric Holder’s flunkies engaged in a bit of judge-shopping until they got the answer they wanted. This has led to calls for Holder’s resignation even from liberals like law professor Jonathan Turley.

2) The IRS scandal: Way back in 2009, President Obama “joked” about targeting his enemies for tax audits. The next year, the IRS started targeting Tea Party groups for extremely intrusive IRS questioning — including questions about books they read, prayers said and names of high school and college students attending their training sessions. Many were basically shut down by this onslaught, leaving them effectively (and conveniently) neutralized for the 2012 election season.

According to White House visitor logs, Acting IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman visited the White House 118 times in 2010 and 2011 (a bit more than twice a week, on average) [whembly: !!!!!!!!!]. His predecessor, who oversaw the agency under Bush, visited the White House only once in his entire career.

There could be an innocent explanation for Schulman’s regular trips — but he hasn’t supplied it. Asked why he visited the White House so often, he said something about taking his kids to the annual Easter Egg Roll.

3) Benghazi: The 2012 Obama Campaign’s line was that al Qaeda was defeated and terror no longer a major threat. Then the US consulate was overrun by, oops, al Qaeda fighters on last Sept. 11, leaving four Americans dead.

The White House, though it knew better, blamed the whole thing on an obscure YouTube video, and saw the video’s filmmaker hustled off to jail for “probation violations.” Since then, it’s become clear that Team Obama knowingly misrepresented events to Congress and the American public.

4) The Sebelius Shakedown: With Congress not appropriating money for ObamaCare implementation, Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius went to people and companies regulated by her department and asked for “donations.” While this may have been legal, it’s plainly inappropriate for a high official to ask for “donations” from people she regulates.

Tired already? I don’t blame you, and I haven’t even mentioned the Pigford scandal, involving payments out of the Treasury’s “Judgment Fund” as part of a settlement scheme that seems rather iffy, even to The New York Times.

I’m reminded of the old “dense pack” missile-basing idea from the 1980s: The idea was to put missile silos close enough together that if one was hit by an atomic bomb, the mushroom cloud would protect the other silos from incoming attacks.

Likewise, it’s argued, by bringing all these scandals out at once — the IRS scandal actually first hit the news thanks to a question planted by IRS official Lois Lerner — the Obama administration may have a few bad weeks, but ensures by the sheer proliferation of scandal that no one of these will get the attention it deserves.

That might work, if you think of scandals as things that, like Watergate, knock out a presidency. But most don’t. The proliferation of scandal in most administrations — think George W. Bush or Bill Clinton — is more like acid rain. There’s no knockout, just an erosion of popularity and clout.

That’s what’s most likely to happen here: The Obama presidency won’t end with a bang, but it just might end with a whimper, worn away by the drip, drip of scandal.

 azazel the cat wrote:
The fact that benghazi is being attached here seriously undermines the credibility of everything else.

Also, are you seriously still keeping this thing alive?

whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
The fact that benghazi is being attached here seriously undermines the credibility of everything else.

The fact that you keep trying to defend your ideological team is telling...

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
The fact that benghazi is being attached here seriously undermines the credibility of everything else.

The fact that you keep trying to defend your ideological team is telling...

My ideological team doesn't exist in the American political system.

Wife of former IRS chief a top adviser to left-leaning DC group

The former IRS commissioner who ran the agency when it was singling out conservative groups is married to a senior adviser for a prominent left-leaning political organization focused largely on campaign finance reform.

Ex-Commissioner Douglas Shulman, who faced a tough round of questioning by Congress last month on the IRS scandal, has denied knowing that the agency targeted Tea Party groups between 2010 and 2012. But he faced new questions following a report that he visited the White House, or the adjacent executive office buildings, at least 157 times during the Obama administration.

Amid the scrutiny, it turns out his wife, Susan L. Anderson, is a senior program adviser for the Washington-based group Public Campaign.

The group bills itself as nonpartisan, and states it is working with “a broad range of organizations” to reform campaign-finance rules.
However, the group receives much of its funding from such liberal groups as the Ford Foundation, Barbra Streisand’s The Streisand Foundation and Health Care for America NOW, a coalition of labor unions supporting ObamaCare that includes the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union, according to the Public Campaign website.

In addition, Public Campaign appeared in 2011 to leave little to the imagination about its views on campaign finance – that the wealthiest Americans, specifically the top 1 percent, are trying to buy or influence elections by secretly donating to political groups.

The group produced a “holiday card” video in which one person said: “Sure my kids might get asthma because Congress keeps doing dirty energy’s bidding, but the Koch brothers need their third home.”

David and Charles Koch, successful businessmen aligned with conservative and libertarian causes, have such nonprofit groups as the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation and support Tea Party-tied heavyweights like FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity.

When the scandal over the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups broke, Public Campaign also appeared to defend the tax agency.

Nick Nyhart, chief executive for Public Campaign, suggested to ABC News that the misdeeds of a “few bad apples” within the agency will “make it harder for those questions to be asked without claims of bias.”

Anderson has also been a supporter and apparent participant in the Occupy Wall Street movement.

She participated in Occupy DC events and tweeted such messages as “DC, good morning! Come down to the (National) Mall and tell your 99 percent story.”

Shulman and Anderson met as students at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Shulman was appointed commissioner by former President George W. Bush.

He reportedly logged more than 100 visits to the White House under Obama, a claim he did not deny during congressional testimony last month on the IRS scandal. That number refers to the number of times Shulman was cleared to visit.

whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
The fact that benghazi is being attached here seriously undermines the credibility of everything else.

The fact that you keep trying to defend your ideological team is telling...

My ideological team doesn't exist in the American political system.

Coulda fooled me... I do remember distinctly our conversations on the merits of Obamacare...

 azazel the cat wrote:
My ideological team doesn't exist in the American political system.

Treasury IG official compares IRS scandal to Nixon

The Treasury Inspector General who uncovered the improper targeting of Tea Party groups by the Internal Revenue Service said Monday he was stunned by what his investigation uncovered.

Russell George, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), said the targeting at the IRS his probe discovered was "unprecedented," and the closest comparison that came to mind was the targeting of political enemies by the administration of Richard Nixon. [whembly: !!!!!!]

"During the Nixon administration, there were attempts to use the Internal Revenue Services in manners that might be comparable in terms of misusing it. I'm not saying the actions taken here are comparable," he told a House Appropriations subcommittee. "This is unprecedented."

The TIGTA report, released in April, has set off a blizzard of controversy on Capitol Hill, and has led to the resignation or removal of several top IRS officials.

George testified alongside Danny Werfel, who took over the IRS as acting commissioner roughly two weeks ago, following the resignation of the former Acting Commissioner Steven Miller.

Werfel, previously a top official at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), called the activity at the IRS unacceptable, and vowed to conduct a comprehensive review of IRS practices to make sure it never happened again.

A key question swirling around the controversy is exactly how IRS employees in Cincinnati came to identify tax-exempt applications for extra scrutiny based in part on Tea Party affiliation decided to take on the practice. Congressional Republicans have expressed disbelief the practice could have been created by low level employees acting out of bounds. George said in conducting his investigation of the practice, IRS employees were asked who gave the direction, and no one would answer the question.