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.
2013/06/18 03:30:18
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
The administration’s current fallback story that the IRS’s behavior was an outlier case of a few “low-level rogue” agents, and that D.C. had absolutely nothing to do with it... is disintegrating.
(sourced and quoted to make dogma happy) IRS supervisor in DCscrutinized tea party cases:
WASHINGTON (AP) — An Internal Revenue Service supervisor in Washington says she was personally involved in scrutinizing some of the earliest applications from tea party groups seeking tax-exempt status, including some requests that languished for more than a year without action.
Holly Paz, who until recently was a top deputy in the division that handles applications for tax-exempt status, told congressional investigators she reviewed 20 to 30 applications. Her assertion contradicts initial claims by the agency that a small group of agents working in an office in Cincinnati were solely responsible for mishandling the applications.
Paz, however, provided no evidence that senior IRS officials ordered agents to target conservative groups or that anyone in the Obama administration outside the IRS was involved.
Instead, Paz described an agency in which IRS supervisors in Washington worked closely with agents in the field but didn't fully understand what those agents were doing. Paz said agents in Cincinnati openly talked about handling "tea party" cases, but she thought the term was merely shorthand for all applications from groups that were politically active — conservative and liberal.
Paz said dozens of tea party applications sat untouched for more than a year while field agents waited for guidance from Washington on how to handle them. At the time, she said, Washington officials thought the agents in Cincinnati were processing the cases.
Paz was among the first IRS employees to be interviewed as part of a joint investigation by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee.
Congressional investigators have interviewed at least six IRS employees as part of their inquiry. The Associated Press has reviewed transcripts from three interviews — with Paz and with two agents, Gary Muthert and Elizabeth Hofacre, from the Cincinnati office.
The IRS declined comment for this story.
A yearlong audit by the agency's inspector general found that IRS agents had improperly targeted conservative political groups for additional and sometimes onerous scrutiny when those groups applied for tax-exempt status.
The audit found no evidence that Washington officials ordered or authorized the targeting. But the IRS watchdog blamed ineffective management by senior IRS officials for allowing it to continue for nearly two years during the 2010 and 2012 elections.
Since the revelations became public last month, much of the agency's leadership has been replaced and the Justice Department has started a criminal investigation. Both Paz and her supervisor, Lois Lerner, who headed the division that handles applications for tax-exempt status, have been replaced.
Agency officials told congressional aides that Lerner was placed on administrative leave. They did not disclose the status Paz, other than to say she was replaced June 7.
Lerner is the IRS official who first disclosed the targeting at a legal conference May 10. That day, she told The AP: "It's the line people that did it without talking to managers. They're IRS workers, they're revenue agents."
On May 22 — the day after Paz was interviewed by investigators — Lerner refused to answer questions from lawmakers at a congressional hearing, citing her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself.
Paz told congressional investigators that an IRS agent in Cincinnati flagged the first tea party case in February 2010. The agent forwarded the application to a manager because it appeared to be politically sensitive, Paz said. The manager informed Paz, who said she had the application assigned to a legal expert in Washington.
At the time, Paz headed a technical unit in Washington that provided guidance to agents who screened applications for tax-exempt status. The agents worked primarily in Cincinnati. One of their tasks was to determine the applicant groups' level of political activity.
IRS regulations say tax-exempt social welfare organizations may engage in some political activity but their primary mission cannot be influencing the outcome of elections. It is up to the IRS to make that determination.
"It's very fact-and-circumstance intensive. So it's a difficult issue," Paz told investigators.
"Oftentimes what we will do, and what we did here, is we'll transfer it to (the technical unit), get someone who's well-versed on that area of the law working the case so they can see what the issues are," Paz said. "The goal with that is ultimately to develop some guidance or a tool that can be given to folks in (the Cincinnati office) to help them in working the cases themselves."
By the fall of 2010, the legal expert in Washington, Carter Hull, was working on about 40 applications, Paz said. A little more than half had "tea party" in the name, she said IRS agents in Cincinnati were singling out groups for extra scrutiny if their applications included the words "tea party," ''patriots" or "9-12 project," according to the inspector general's report. Paz said she didn't learn that agents were targeting groups based on those terms until June 2011, about the time Lerner first ordered agents to change the criteria.
Paz said an IRS supervisor in Cincinnati had commonly referred to the applications as "tea party" cases. But, Paz said, she thought that was simply shorthand for any application that included political activity.
"Since the first case that came up to Washington happened to have that name, it appeared to me that's why they were calling it that as a shorthand," Paz told congressional investigators.
Paz said she didn't think the agents in Cincinnati were politically motivated.
"My impression, based on, you know, this instance and other instances in the office is that because they are so apolitical, they are not as sensitive as we would like them to be as to how things might appear," Paz said.
"Many of these employees have been with the IRS for decades and were used to a world where how they talked about things internally was not something that would be public or that anyone would be interested in," Paz added. "So I don't think they thought much about how it would appear to others. They knew what they meant and that was sort of good enough for them."
For several months in 2010, Hull worked closely with Hofacre, the agent in Cincinnati, to review the tea party cases, Paz said. In Hofacre's interview, she complained that Hull micromanaged her work.
Hofacre left for a different IRS job in October 2010 and was replaced by an agent whose name was blacked out in the transcript. Paz said the new agent sat on the tea party applications for more than a year because he was waiting on guidance from Washington on how to proceed. Officials in Washington, however, thought the agents in Cincinnati were still processing the cases, she said.
As a result, many applications languished for more than a year, which, the inspector general said, hurt the groups' ability to raise money.
"I knew they were waiting for guidance," Paz said. "I did not know that they were not working the cases because what had been done previously was, they were working the cases in consultation with Washington. And I was under the impression that that was continuing."
Hull was to be interviewed by congressional investigators on Friday. Efforts to reach Hull and Paz for comment were unsuccessful.
In all, agents singled out 298 applications for additional scrutiny because the groups appeared to be involved in political activity, the inspector general's report said. But IRS agents in Cincinnati weren't given adequate training on how to handle the cases until May 2012, the report said.
Before the training, only six applications had been approved. Afterward, an additional 102 applications were approved by December 2012, the report said.
Of those 102 applications, 29 involved tea party, patriots, or 9-12 organizations, the report said. Many applications are still awaiting action. None has been rejected, according to the IRS.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/06/18 12:10:57
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
Instead, Paz described an agency in which IRS supervisors in Washington worked closely with agents in the field but didn't fully understand what those agents were doing. Paz said agents in Cincinnati openly talked about handling "tea party" cases, but she thought the term was merely shorthand for all applications from groups that were politically active — conservative and liberal.
Yeah....because the phrase "Tea Party" is synonymous with liberal groups......
2013/06/18 12:24:51
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
Instead, Paz described an agency in which IRS supervisors in Washington worked closely with agents in the field but didn't fully understand what those agents were doing. Paz said agents in Cincinnati openly talked about handling "tea party" cases, but she thought the term was merely shorthand for all applications from groups that were politically active — conservative and liberal.
Yeah....because the phrase "Tea Party" is synonymous with liberal groups......
tea parties for all, isn't that one of their platform policies? Give us your tired, your poor, your crumpetless
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+ Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics
2013/06/18 12:34:37
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
The Tea Party movement is an American political movement that advocates adherence to the United States Constitution,[1][not in citation given] and reducing U.S. government spending and taxes,[2][3] and reduction of the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit.[2] The movement has been called partly conservative,[4] partly libertarian,[5] and partly populist.[6] The movement has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009
. . .
Aside from rallies, some groups affiliated with the Tea Party movement began to focus on getting out the vote and ground game efforts on behalf of candidates supportive of their agenda starting in the 2010 elections.
Various Tea Party groups have endorsed candidates in the elections. In the 2010 midterm elections, The New York Times identified 138 candidates for Congress with significant Tea Party support, and reported that all of them were running as Republicans—of whom 129 were running for the House and 9 for the Senate.[93] The Wall Street Journal–NBC News poll in mid October showed 35% of likely voters were Tea-party supporters, and they favored the Republicans by 84% to 10%.[94] The first Tea Party affiliated candidate to be elected into office is believed to be Dean Murray, a Long Island businessman, who won a special election for a New York State Assembly seat in February 2010.[95]
According to statistics on an NBC blog, overall, 32% of the candidates that were backed by the Tea Party or identified themselves as a Tea Party member won election. Tea Party supported candidates won 5 of 10 Senate races (50%) contested, and 40 of 130 House races (31%) contested.[96] In the primaries for Colorado, Nevada and Delaware the Tea-party backed Senate Republican nominees defeated "establishment" Republicans that had been expected to win their respective Senate races, but went on to lose in the general election to their Democrat opponents.[97]
Tea Party candidates were less successful in the 2012 election, winning four of 16 Senate races contested, and losing approximately 20% of the seats in the House that had been gained in 2010. Tea Party Caucus founder Michele Bachmann was re-elected to the House by a narrow margin
2013/06/18 12:46:55
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
Twelve different groups within the IRS targeted conservative organizations applying for tax-exempt nonprofit status, according to the attorneys representing tea party plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against the IRS.
The revelation disproves the suggestion by a top congressional Democrat that only one IRS group was responsible for scrutinizing tea party and conservative applications.
Group 7821, Group 7822, Group 7823, Group 7824, Group 7827, Group 7828, Group 7829, Group 7830, Group 7838, EOG-7887, and EOG-7888, and the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division in Washington, D.C. all targeted conservative groups between 2010 and 2012, according to documentation compiled by the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which has filed a class-action suit against the IRS.
Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee investigating the IRS targeting scandal, previously suggested that tea party applications were sent only to Group 7822 for scrutiny. Cummings released transcripts of an interview his staff conducted with John Shafer, an employee of the Cincinnati IRS office, who claimed that he sent tea party applications specifically to Group 7822.
“Based upon everything I’ve seen the case is solved,” Cummings said on CNN during a June 9 interview.
The ACLJ disagrees.
“[John] Shafer was just one individual describing his experience interacting with one group [Group 7822]. If he was only interacting with one group then his involvement in this process was minimal,” ACLJ senior counsel David French told The Daily Caller.
“Group 7822 was pinpointed because of the release from Rep. Cummings, which created the impression that there were one or two agents that referred to a single group,” French said. “In fact we are dealing with multiple IRS offices across the nation that were targeting conservative groups, and eleven different IRS groups beside Group 7822, including the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division in Washington. Each of these groups was working on tea party and conservative cases.”
“After Rep. Cummings’ statement, the media fixated on Group 7822 as the patient zero of the outbreak when the reality is it was many groups, so the IRS hierarchy is much more implicated,” French said.
Between 2010 and 2012, the IRS sent letters to tea party applicants across the country demanding more information before their tax-exempt applications could be approved. On the upper left-hand corner of these letters, the IRS identified the working group within the agency requesting the information. Twelve different groups appeared on these letters, according to French.
The El Monte, California IRS office, for instance, sent a letter requesting additional information to Oklahoma City Patriots in Action, dated February 9, 2012, which listed the IRS group EOG-7887 in the upper left-hand corner.
“We’re going to find out the differences between these IRS groups in litigation,” French said. “Which personnel were in each group? Was there overlap in personnel?”
It remains unclear whether these IRS groups existed prior to the targeting. It is also unclear whether these groups each had their own physical locations, according to French.
Despite claims by IRS officials that the targeting occurred only in the agency’s Cincinnati office, the ACLJ compiled letters proving that IRS offices in Washington, D.C. and the California cities of El Monte and Laguna Niguel also targeted conservatives. The Daily Caller has also reported that the agency’s Baltimore and Chicago offices engaged in the improper targeting.
Cincinnati-based IRS employee Elizabeth Hofacre told congressional investigators that Washington-based IRS lawyer Carter Hull oversaw her office’s targeting, and even instructed her on how to demand additional information from tea party groups. “I was essentially a front person, because I had no autonomy or no authority to act on [applications] without Carter Hull’s influence or input,” Hofacre said.
“We know that the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division in Washington, D.C. was involved, and that’s where Carter Hull and Lois Lerner were working. We have 14 letters directly from Lois Lerner,” French said. “When Lois Lerner said on May 10 that this was just a few agents in Cincinnati, we were literally holding in our hands 14 letters that she wrote to conservative groups.”
The IRS did not immediately return a request for comment.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/25 15:49:52
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/06/25 15:52:05
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
Easy E wrote: The story line I've been hearing this afternoon/morning is that they were targeting all sorts of groups inappropriately and not just Conservatives.
Hmmm, will the Tea Partiers care so much now that the IRS investigations weren't witch hunts that they could try to tie to the President?
If that's true, then why did the IRS apologize?
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/06/25 18:37:15
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
Come to think of it, we’ve kind of known since the beginning that liberal groups were also examined and rejected for non-profit status. Back when the scandal originally broke,Bloomberg reported that at least three liberal groups were scrutinized, and two of the groups were denied tax exempt status. Later, we discovered that out of 176 organizations that were granted tax exempt status in 2010, 122 were conservative and 48 were liberal/non-conservative. In other words, more than twice as many conservative groups were approved over liberal groups.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/06/25 19:02:28
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2013/06/25 18:56:53
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
You're being spun, America. On the vital question of whether the Internal Revenue Service incompetently or corruptly targeted conservative groups, both the White House and GOP are rushing to judgment – and they want you to follow like lemmings.
Don't do it.
Nearly six weeks ago, President Obama responded to an inspector general's report detailing the targeting, which had been long denied by the IRS. "The misconduct that it uncovered is inexcusable. It's inexcusable, and Americans are right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it," Obama said, vowing to "hold the responsible parties accountable."
The IG report was based on a cursory audit. It was not a full-fledged investigation. And yet Democrats disingenuously claimed that it exonerated the Obama administration and the president's re-election campaign from any involvement in IRS targeting.
To truly "hold the responsible parties accountable," Obama still needed a thorough and impartial inquiry led by investigators who would question witnesses under oath, and would subpoena the White House and his own re-election campaign for related emails and other documents.
He did not ask for that.
Smelling blood, the GOP-controlled House launched an investigation led by Rep. Darrell Issa of California. Never mistaken for an impartial investigator, Issa quickly declared that IRS targeting was "ordered from Washington" – a thinly veiled indictment of the White House. His evidence? A few cherry-picked interviews with IRS officials and an Orwellian subtext: "We're getting to proving it," Issa said. On June 3 I wrote of Issa: "Meet the best friend of a controversy-plagued Democratic White House: a demagogic Republican."
Meanwhile, Obama backed his strong words with middling action, transferring political ally Danny Werfel from the Office of Management and Budget to the IRS, where as acting commissioner Werfel would investigate his own administration.
Werfel may be a stand-up guy with a solid reputation in Washington. But the public doesn't know him. The public also doesn't trust the federal government. And the public doesn't like the IRS.
Why, after the agency's massive breach of trust, would Obama think a Werfel-led investigation will restore the public's faith?
Werfel announced Monday that instructions used by the IRS to look for applicants seeking tax-exempt status with "Tea Party" and "Patriots" in their title also included groups whose names included the word "Progressive" and "Occupy." Jonathon Weisman of The New York Times reported, "The documents appeared to back up contentions by IRS officials and some Democrats that the agency did not intend to single out conservative groups for special scrutiny."
The White House and its allies declared the scandal over. Said David Axelrod, one of Obama's longest-serving advisers, said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show: "I think the implication that this was some sort of scheme is falling apart."
Don't buy it. Like Issa and the GOP, Democrats are jumping to convenient conclusions based on incomplete evidence and no credible investigation.
There is a hard truth that partisans won't admit: Until more is known, we can't implicate or exonerate anybody.
If forced to guess, I would say that the IRS and its White House masters are guilty of gross incompetence, but not corruption. I based that only on my personal knowledge of – and respect for – Obama and his team. But I shouldn't have to guess. More importantly, most Americans don't have a professional relationship with Obama and his team. Many don't respect or trust government. They deserve what Obama promised nearly six weeks ago – accountability. They need a thorough investigation conducted by somebody other than demagogic Republicans and White House allies.
Somebody like …. a special prosecutor. Those words are hard for me to type two decades after an innocent land deal I covered in Arkansas turned into the runaway Whitewater investigation.
But Obama was right to be angry about the IG audit. He knows how important it is for Americans to trust the IRS, an agency that keeps our secrets, that collects taxes to run government, and that will soon implement Obama's own health care program.
What the IRS did, Obama said less than six weeks ago, was "inexcusable." That's a good word to describe what Republicans and Democrats in Washington are doing now -- cherry-picking evidence from partisan and cursory inquiries, treating Americans like lemmings and the truth like a leper.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/25 18:58:58
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/06/25 19:00:43
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
Easy E wrote: The story line I've been hearing this afternoon/morning is that they were targeting all sorts of groups inappropriately and not just Conservatives.
Hmmm, will the Tea Partiers care so much now that the IRS investigations weren't witch hunts that they could try to tie to the President?
If that's true, then why did the IRS apologize?
Because, just like any company, athlete or government agency, they told you what you wanted to hear because it was expected of them. It wasn't a confession, and I said as much in the first few pages. An apology is simply for the purposes of placating those who are more interested in their own emotional reaction to a message than to the actual content of the message.
You've really got to just let that apology go and stop considering damning evidence, because it isn't. It's like a concilliatory "I'm sorry" spoken at a funeral; it's not a confession.
2013/06/25 19:04:51
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
Come to think of it, we’ve kind of known since the beginning that liberal groups were also examined and rejected for non-profit status. Back when the scandal originally broke,Bloomberg reported that at least three liberal groups were scrutinized, and two of the groups were denied tax exempt status. Later, we discovered that out of 176 organizations that were granted tax exempt status in 2010, 122 were conservative and 48 were liberal/non-conservative. In other words, more than twice as many conservative groups were approved over liberal groups.
Camp said in a Monday statement that the IRS review did not provide much clarity on key questions like who started the targeting, and why it continued for so long.
“This culture of political discrimination and intimidation goes far beyond basic management failure, and personnel changes alone won’t fix a broken IRS,” Camp said.
Camp’s office issued another release acknowledging that BOLOs had screened for liberal groups. But the Michigan Republican, who has stressed in recent weeks that the targeting went far beyond what was in the May audit, also said there was no evidence that groups on the left had donors threatened, confidential information leaked or faced the sort of inappropriate questions that conservative groups faced.
“It is one thing to flag a group,” a spokeswoman for Camp said. “It is quite another to repeatedly target and abuse conservative groups.”
The House Oversight chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), added that it was “premature” for Werfel to say that there was “no evidence that anyone at IRS intentionally did anything wrong.”
Easy E wrote: The story line I've been hearing this afternoon/morning is that they were targeting all sorts of groups inappropriately and not just Conservatives.
Hmmm, will the Tea Partiers care so much now that the IRS investigations weren't witch hunts that they could try to tie to the President?
If that's true, then why did the IRS apologize?
Because, just like any company, athlete or government agency, they told you what you wanted to hear because it was expected of them. It wasn't a confession, and I said as much in the first few pages. An apology is simply for the purposes of placating those who are more interested in their own emotional reaction to a message than to the actual content of the message.
You've really got to just let that apology go and stop considering damning evidence, because it isn't. It's like a concilliatory "I'm sorry" spoken at a funeral; it's not a confession.
Remind me not to vote or work for you then. I don't want to be told something because it's something I wanted to hear.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/25 19:08:18
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/06/25 19:11:24
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
First you didn't hear anything about this targeting of liberal groups, then you post what is literally the first rebuttal of the story that I come across when typing "IRS targeting liberal groups" into Google.
Tell me more.
2013/06/25 19:39:49
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
d-usa wrote: First you didn't hear anything about this targeting of liberal groups, then you post what is literally the first rebuttal of the story that I come across when typing "IRS targeting liberal groups" into Google.
The more accurate reports merely mention that a certain type of “progressive” group applications was mentioned on IRS “be on the lookout lists.”
But if progressive advocacy groups were given the third degree, then you might ask why none of them have come forward. Possibly because the documents in question do not actually say they were systematically targeted. And in fact, probably because the kinds of groups discussed in these documents are of a totally different nature than the Tea Party groups targeted in the recent scandal.
The 14 new IRS documents do mention the term “progressive,” but only in describing applications for the coveted 501 c(3) status, which confers tax deductibility on donations. The documents where the term “progressive” appears (or wasn’t redacted) instruct agents that c(3) status is not appropriate for groups that conduct overtly political activity. Unlike 501 c(4) groups — nearly all of those involved in the Tea Party targeting scandal — 501 c(3) groups are not permitted to engage in political advocacy at all.
The new IRS documents are watch lists, and they more or less all resemble the one at this link, though there are important changes over time. For example, by February 2012, the “Tea Party” entry that appears in earlier memos is replaced with more politically neutral phrasing about “political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding government, educating on the constitution and bill of rights, social economic reform/movement.”
‘Progressive’
Most of the heavily-redacted documents in question include the label “progressive” in what appears to be a troubleshooting guide for typical cases that IRS employees have recently come across. A few of the other legible examples alongside the entry for “progressive” include unusual cases involving suspicious corporate structures (including churches), cases in which exemption letters have been falsified, certain entities in Puerto Rico (whose precise nature is redacted), pain management clinics, and 176 cases in which filers used the same address to conduct what might have been a tax scam. For some of these types of cases, a specific group or agent is identified as handling them.
In each list where it appears, the entry marked “progressive” is less specific, simply containing a warning against granting 501 c(3) status to groups that appear to be too political, but it includes no further instructions on what to do with such cases. The descriptor in the “progressive” entry reads:
Common thread is the word ‘progressive.’ Activities appear to lean toward a new political party. Activities are partisan and appear as anti-Republican. You see references to ‘blue’ as being ‘progressive.
Although it appears in the incorrect column of the document, this appears to be the “Tax Law issue” associated with “progressive” groups (brackets mine):
Applicants submit form 1023 [the IRS form for obtaining 501 c(3) status]. Their ‘progressive’ activities appear to show that (c)(3) may not be appropriate.
TEA PARTY
The “Tea Party” entry fell under a separate category in the earlier memos, marked “emerging issues,” and the targeting scandal pertains mostly to c(4) groups, although c(3) groups are mentioned in these watch lists as well.
The instructions that appear in earlier versions of the watch list documents are much more specific for “Tea Party” groups than those for “progressive” groups. They dictate special scrutiny of both 501 c(3) and 501 (c)(4) Tea Party applicants.
The descriptor in the earlier versions reads as follows: “These case [sic] involve various local organizations in the Tea Party movement are applying [sic] for exemption under 501 c(3) or 501 c(4),” one version states, with halting grammar.
Under the heading “disposition,” the document states:
Any cases should be sent to group 7822. Liz Hofacre is coordinating. These cases are currently being coordinated with EOT.
In later versions, even with the more neutral language, the “group 7822″ is also referred to as the destination for such cases.
The documents do nothing to contradict the notion that Tea Party groups applying for 501 c(4) were singled out and treated in a way similar “progressive” groups were not. Yet they also do not demonstrate that Tea Party groups are the only ones that got the shaft.
If they weren’t, there should be a way to find out: Simply identify dozens or hundreds of “progressive” groups out there got treatment similar to the hundreds of “Tea Party” groups that waited months or years for 501 c(4) status, or received bizarre inquiries about their religious or political habits or were subjected to strange requests (e.g., a promise that certain people involved would never run for office) in exchange for their legal status.
If such progressive groups exist and were systematically targeted, then we haven’t heard anything about them yet or seen their kind mentioned on these watch lists.
UPDATE: Yes, I’m aware that there were three liberal groups that got the third degree — one of which admittedly “works only with women who are in the Democratic Party” (kind of a no-brainer) and another of which had a name (“Clean Elections Texas”) that might have resembled that of a conservative group combating voter fraud. But one swallow does not a spring make. Given the systematic nature of the Tea Party targeting, it’s going to have to be a little more serious and widespread than that to debunk what the bureaucrats clearly and admittedly did to Tea Party groups.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/06/25 19:57:58
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
Non-conservative advocacy groups given special scrutiny by the IRS in or after 2010 included the Coffee Party USA, the alternative to the Tea Party movement that got a bunch of press in 2010, as well as such explicitly progressive groups as the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada; Rebuild the Dream, founded by former Obama administration official Van Jones; and Progressives United Inc., which was founded by former Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold.
Also included in the special scrutiny were Progress Texas and Progress Missouri Inc.; Tie the Knot, which sells bow ties to raise money to promote same-sex marriage; and ProgressNow, which describes itself as "a year-round never-ending progressive campaign."
The targeting also rolled up centrist groups, such as the Across the Aisle Foundation -- the educational and cultural arm of No Labels, which worked to build momentum for an independent ticket for the presidency -- and politically neutral ones, such as The East Hampton Group for Good Government Inc., formed to encourage better leadership and management of the New York vacation town, and the League of Women Voters of Hawaii.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2013/06/25 20:04:07
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
Non-conservative advocacy groups given special scrutiny by the IRS in or after 2010 included the Coffee Party USA, the alternative to the Tea Party movement that got a bunch of press in 2010, as well as such explicitly progressive groups as the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada; Rebuild the Dream, founded by former Obama administration official Van Jones; and Progressives United Inc., which was founded by former Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold.
Also included in the special scrutiny were Progress Texas and Progress Missouri Inc.; Tie the Knot, which sells bow ties to raise money to promote same-sex marriage; and ProgressNow, which describes itself as "a year-round never-ending progressive campaign."
The targeting also rolled up centrist groups, such as the Across the Aisle Foundation -- the educational and cultural arm of No Labels, which worked to build momentum for an independent ticket for the presidency -- and politically neutral ones, such as The East Hampton Group for Good Government Inc., formed to encourage better leadership and management of the New York vacation town, and the League of Women Voters of Hawaii.
Dude stop. You can't just go posting things because they're true.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/06/25 20:04:36
2013/06/25 21:34:08
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
d-usa wrote: First you didn't hear anything about this targeting of liberal groups, then you post what is literally the first rebuttal of the story that I come across when typing "IRS targeting liberal groups" into Google.
GOP congressman hits back against Dem claim that IRS targeted progressives, too
House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dave Camp slapped down Democratic claims that progressive groups were also improperly targeted by the IRS between 2010 and 2012, stifling a growing media narrative that the IRS targeting was not partisan.
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.
Nevertheless, the New York Times reported, “taken together, the documents seem to change the terms of a scandal that exploded over accusations that the I.R.S. had tried to stifle a nascent conservative political movement. Instead, the dispute now revolves around questionable sorting tactics used by I.R.S. application screeners.”
While Camp’s Ways and Means staff noted that progressive groups were also featured on an IRS’ BOLO list, alongside tea party groups, it pointed out that only tea party groups had their donors threatened, had confidential information leaked, were sent “inappropriate and intrusive” questions, and had their applications delayed for more than two years, according to currently available evidence.
Camp’s staff also noted that only tea party groups were mentioned as having been targeted in a Treasury Inspector General’s report on the IRS scandal. Nearly 100 conservative or tea party applications were given extra scrutiny, according to the IG report.
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.
“It is one thing to flag a group, it is quite another to repeatedly target and abuse conservative groups. Tea Party groups were not just on a BOLO they (1) were sent intrusive and inappropriate questions, (2) had their donors threatened with gift taxes and (3) had their confidential information leaked,” said Ways and Means Committee spokesperson Sarah Swinehart.
“The Committee has welcomed all groups, regardless of affiliation, that feel they may have been targeted for extra scrutiny to come forward. The Ways and Means Committee will continue to investigate the IRS’s inexcusable actions when the IRS comes to testify on the report this Thursday,” Swinehart added.
As The Daily Caller has previously reported, conservative groups and specific individuals across the country were harassed by the IRS, which demanded personal information on conservative college interns, conservative groups’ training materials, and even the content of religious groups’ prayers.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/06/25 22:03:25
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
d-usa wrote: First you didn't hear anything about this targeting of liberal groups, then you post what is literally the first rebuttal of the story that I come across when typing "IRS targeting liberal groups" into Google.
GOP congressman hits back against Dem claim that IRS targeted progressives, too
House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dave Camp slapped down Democratic claims that progressive groups were also improperly targeted by the IRS between 2010 and 2012, stifling a growing media narrative that the IRS targeting was not partisan.
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.
Nevertheless, the New York Times reported, “taken together, the documents seem to change the terms of a scandal that exploded over accusations that the I.R.S. had tried to stifle a nascent conservative political movement. Instead, the dispute now revolves around questionable sorting tactics used by I.R.S. application screeners.”
While Camp’s Ways and Means staff noted that progressive groups were also featured on an IRS’ BOLO list, alongside tea party groups, it pointed out that only tea party groups had their donors threatened, had confidential information leaked, were sent “inappropriate and intrusive” questions, and had their applications delayed for more than two years, according to currently available evidence.
Camp’s staff also noted that only tea party groups were mentioned as having been targeted in a Treasury Inspector General’s report on the IRS scandal. Nearly 100 conservative or tea party applications were given extra scrutiny, according to the IG report.
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.
“It is one thing to flag a group, it is quite another to repeatedly target and abuse conservative groups. Tea Party groups were not just on a BOLO they (1) were sent intrusive and inappropriate questions, (2) had their donors threatened with gift taxes and (3) had their confidential information leaked,” said Ways and Means Committee spokesperson Sarah Swinehart.
“The Committee has welcomed all groups, regardless of affiliation, that feel they may have been targeted for extra scrutiny to come forward. The Ways and Means Committee will continue to investigate the IRS’s inexcusable actions when the IRS comes to testify on the report this Thursday,” Swinehart added.
As The Daily Caller has previously reported, conservative groups and specific individuals across the country were harassed by the IRS, which demanded personal information on conservative college interns, conservative groups’ training materials, and even the content of religious groups’ prayers.
Dude stop. You can't just go posting things because they're true.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2013/06/25 22:29:46
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
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.
Were they targeted because they were conservative, or because they were political? Were said organizations required to submit a list of donors, or did they do it of their own volition?
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2013/06/26 18:04:13
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
A second IRS employee summoned to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee invoked the Fifth Amendment on Wednesday and refused to answer questions — a flashback to Lois Lerner, who did the same during a hearing on the agency’s scandal last month.
Gregory Roseman, who worked as a deputy director of acquisitions at the IRS, exercised his constitutional rights when Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) started interrogating him about panel findings that he helped a friend procure potentially $500 million worth of IRS contracts.
“On the advice of the counsel, I respectfully decline to answer any questions and invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege to remain silent,” Roseman said when Issa asked to whom he reported at the IRS.
Issa continued: “Mr. Roseman, when did you first become aware of a company called Strong Castle Inc.?”
Roseman, who has been removed from his position pending the outcome of an inspector general investigation, repeated his first statement.
The panel on Tuesday released a report alleging that Roseman’s “cozy relationship” with Strong Castle Inc.’s president, Braulio Castillo,
helped the company secure $500 million in potential contracts.
But unlike Lerner, who triggered the IRS scandal by acknowledging the agency wrongly targeted tea party groups applying for a tax exemption, Roseman didn’t offer any type of statement before invoking his constitutional rights.
The exchange differed from Lerner’s interaction with the committee. Before she took the Fifth, the former head of the IRS tax exempt division that oversaw the targeting of conservative groups told Issa’s panel on May 22 that she didn’t do anything wrong.
That triggered debate about whether she waived her rights.
The panel will vote Friday on whether they think Lerner, now suspended from her IRS duties, waived her constitutional protections.
Issa seemed to accept Roseman’s invocation, but Roseman still hiccuped.
Before the panel took testimony from witnesses, Issa said he “does not want to have anyone waiving their right accidentally, involuntarily or in any other way” and asked the panel if anyone wanted to invoke the Fifth.
Roseman piped up, but seemed to flub his words: “Sir, I do intend to waive mine — I, I intend to invoke my Fifth Amendment rig
ht.”
Issa continued: “Mr. Roseman, when did you first become aware of a company called Strong Castle Inc.?”
Roseman, who has been removed from his position pending the outcome of an inspector general investigation, repeated his first statement.
The panel on Tuesday released a report alleging that Roseman’s “cozy relationship” with Strong Castle Inc.’s president, Braulio Castillo, helped the company secure $500 million in potential contracts.
But unlike Lerner, who triggered the IRS scandal by acknowledging the agency wrongly targeted tea party groups applying for a tax exemption, Roseman didn’t offer any type of statement before invoking his constitutional rights.
The exchange differed from Lerner’s interaction with the committee. Before she took the Fifth, the former head of the IRS tax exempt division that oversaw the targeting of conservative groups told Issa’s panel on May 22 that she didn’t do anything wrong.
That triggered debate about whether she waived her rights.
The panel will vote Friday on whether they think Lerner, now suspended from her IRS duties, waived her constitutional protections.
Issa seemed to accept Roseman’s invocation, but Roseman still hiccuped.
Before the panel took testimony from witnesses, Issa said he “does not want to have anyone waiving their right accidentally, involuntarily or in any other way” and asked the panel if anyone wanted to invoke the Fifth.
Roseman piped up, but seemed to flub his words: “Sir, I do intend to waive mine — I, I intend to invoke my Fifth Amendment right.”
It's okay I didn't include the obligatory winky face 
I gotcha now
