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.
2013/06/26 18:22:55
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
When a 501(c)(3) hosts a Presidential campaign event it would be hard to claim it didn't engage in political action which is, of course, not permitted.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/26 18:54:56
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2013/06/26 18:55:59
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
When a 501(c)(3) hosts a Presidential campaign event it would be hard to claim it didn't engage in political action which is, of course, not permitted.
Likely because of his church's charitable work.
Now, explain to me why MMFA has avoided scrutiny.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/06/26 19:02:52
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
d-usa wrote: MMFA is not the same organization as the Media Matters Action Network, which is organized as a 501(c)(4) and not a (3).
True, but I would argue that a 501(c)(3) which funds a 501(c)(4) that engages in political activity is, itself, engaged in political activity.
Isn't that the whole reason why so many places made both of them. People donate to the one that doesn't have to disclose donors, and that organization then makes donations to the one that has to disclose.
So Organization A reports "we got lots of donations from Organization B" and organization B reports "we got money, it's secret though".
Which is stupid in and off itself, despite the whole "who is targeting who" and "who is engaged in what" thing going on.
2013/06/26 20:36:29
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
Liberal groups seeking tax-exempt status faced less IRS scrutiny than Tea Party groups, according to the Treasury inspector general.
Russell George, Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, told Rep. Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) in a letter dated Wednesday that the IRS did not use inappropriate criteria to scrutinize groups with “progressives” in their name seeking tax-exempt status.
“Our audit did not find evidence that the IRS used the ‘progressives’ identifier as selection criteria for potential political cases between May 2010 and May 2012,” George wrote in the letter obtained by The Hill.
The inspector general also stressed that 100 percent of the groups with “Tea Party,” “patriots” and “9/12” in their name were flagged for extra attention.
“While we have multiple sources of information corroborating the use of Tea Party and other related criteria we described in our report, including employee interviews, e-mails and other documents, we found no indication in any of these other materials that ‘progressives’ was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political campaign intervention,” George wrote to Levin, the top Democrat on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.
George and his office have faced criticism in recent days after it emerged that its audit was tasked with looking into merely whether conservative groups faced tough IRS scrutiny. Documents released this week showed other groups — including liberal and non-partisan organizations — also received scrutiny from the IRS, and Democrats have suggested this wasn't noted in the ensuing scandal because of the IG's focus on conservative groups.
George insisted that his office did not limit its audit to Tea Party groups.
George’s letter adds a new twist to an IRS controversy that still has only seemed to get more muddy this week, and still has major unanswered questions – including why the targeting of groups went on for so long and why IRS officials declined to inform Congress.
Levin and other Democrats have said this week that new information from the IRS that shows that the term “progressives” were on an agency watch list raised serious questions about the audit. Democrats have added that the “flawed” report from George has allowed Republicans to overly politicize the IRS’s treatment of groups seeking tax-exempt status.
Progressive groups that sought tax-exempt status also have been coming forward more frequently in recent weeks to outline what they saw as overbearing treatment from the IRS. But all week, Republicans have been saying that – while both groups from across the political spectrum had been flagged by so-called “be on the lookout,” or BOLO, lists – the IRS treated Tea Party and conservative groups more harshly.
Levin on Thursday said the IG is now changing its story. He said the IG has inconsistent responses to Congress.
“Congress deserved to know that ‘progressives’ were on the IRS screening list during the time of the audit and progressive organizations were in the review group," Levin said in a statement Thursday. "These omissions changed the nature of the investigation and the IG’s testimony is not consistent with his written response.”
Republicans argue the preponderance of evidence suggests conservative groups were singled out for abuse by the IRS.
"At this point, the evidence shows us that conservative groups were not only flagged, but targeted and abused by the IRS," said Sarah Swinehart, a spokeswoman for Ways and Mean Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich).
"As we gather the facts, we will follow them wherever they lead us. Chairman Camp encourages all groups, regardless of political affiliation, that feel they may have been targeted to come forward and share their story."
George’s letter says that the “progressive” identifier on BOLO lists was not in a section used for selecting potential political cases, and that the IRS had developed inappropriate criteria to flag Tea Party applicants as potentially political.
Democrats on Levin's panel and media outlets have also said that some of the 298 groups George examined for his audit were liberal, something Democrats have slammed the inspector general for not mentioning.
But in his letter, George said he did not think it would be appropriate for a nonpartisan inspector general to make the call on what constitutes a liberal or conservative group.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/06/27 18:37:09
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
Easy E wrote: So Whembly, you don;t care about IRS targetting perse, you only care about whether you can hang it on the President and the Democrats as a scandal?
Meh... I seriously doubt the President said "Hey you guys at the IRS... make life difficult for my political opponents would ya !"
I think it's far more likely that the inner mechanism of the President's Re-election campaign may have orchestrated it... hoping to make his/her mark as a valuable political behind-the-scenes operative.
Obama isn't going to be anywhere near impeached....
The Tea Party's fetish to abolishing the IRS is never gonna happen...
The GOP is shooting themselves in the foot with these scandals... it's going to blow over soon due to the public's short attention span...
Regardless... to fix this, I'd rather that the IRS get out of the whole granting the 501c3/501c4 business.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/06/28 02:23:37
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/06/28 17:07:49
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
The House Oversight Committee on Friday approved a resolution that says Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment right last month by claiming innocence during a congressional hearing.
The panel called Lerner to testify on May 14 about inappropriate screening and scrutiny the IRS had applied to groups seeking tax-exempt status.
Before invoking her privilege against self-incrimination, Lerner, whose lawyers have said she is part of a Justice Department criminal investigation, made a brief statement to the committee.
“I have not done anything wrong,” she said. “I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.”
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/06/28 17:10:42
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
Contempt of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of the United States Congress or one of its committees. Historically the bribery of a senator or representative was considered contempt of Congress. In modern times, contempt of Congress has generally applied to the refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by a Congressional committee or subcommittee — usually seeking to compel either testimony or the production of documents
Subpoenas[edit]
Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents for subjects under its jurisdiction. Committee rules may provide for the full Committee to issue a subpoena, or permit subcommittees or the Chairman (acting alone or with the ranking member) to issue subpoenas.
As announced in Wilkinson v. United States,[3] the Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its Chamber; second, the investigation must pursue "a valid legislative purpose" but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress; and third, the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation.
The Court held in Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund[4] that Congressional subpoenas are within the scope of the Speech and Debate clause which provides "an absolute bar to judicial interference" once it is determined that Members are acting within the "legitimate legislative sphere" with such compulsory process. Under that ruling, Courts generally do not hear motions to quash Congressional subpoenas; even when executive branch officials refuse to comply, the Courts tend to rule that such matters are "political questions" unsuitable for judicial remedy.
Procedures[edit]
Following the refusal of a witness to produce documents or to testify, the Committee is entitled to report a resolution of contempt to its parent chamber. A Committee may also cite a person for contempt but not immediately report the resolution to the floor. In the case of subcommittees, they report the resolution of contempt to the full Committee, which then has the option of rejecting it, accepting it but not reporting it to the floor, or accepting it and reporting it to the floor of the chamber for action. On the floor of the House or the Senate, the reported resolution is considered privileged and, if the resolution of contempt is passed, the chamber has several options to enforce its mandate.
Inherent contempt[edit]
Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation).
Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its "inherent contempt" authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process was last used by the Senate in 1934, in a Senate investigation of airlines and the U.S. Postmaster. After a one-week trial on the Senate floor (presided over by the Vice-President of the United States, acting as Senate President), William P. MacCracken, Jr., a lawyer and former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics who had allowed clients to rip up subpoenaed documents, was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment.[5]
MacCracken filed a petition of habeas corpus in federal courts to overturn his arrest, but after litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted constitutionally, and denied the petition in the case Jurney v. MacCracken.[6][7]
Presidential pardons appear not to apply to a civil contempt procedure such as the above, since it is not an "offense against the United States" or against "the dignity of public authority."[8]
Statutory proceedings[edit]
This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (July 2008)
Following a contempt citation, the presiding officer of the chamber is instructed to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia;[9] according to the law it is the "duty" of the U.S. Attorney to refer the matter to a grand jury for action.
The criminal offense of "contempt of Congress" sets the penalty at not less than one month nor more than twelve months in jail and a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000.[10]
While the law pronounces the duty of the U.S. Attorney is to impanel a grand jury for its action on the matter, some proponents of the unitary executive theory believe that the Congress cannot properly compel the U.S. Attorney to take this action against the Executive Branch, asserting that the U.S. Attorney is a member of the Executive Branch who ultimately reports only to the President and that compelling the U.S. Attorney amounts to compelling the President himself. They believe that to allow Congress to force the President to take action against a subordinate following his directives would be a violation of the separation of powers and infringe on the power of the Executive branch. The legal basis for this belief, they contend, can be found in Federalist 49, in which James Madison wrote “The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, none of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.” This approach to government is commonly known as "departmentalism” or “coordinate construction”[citation needed]
Others believe that, under Article II, the principal duty of the President is to execute the law; that, under Article I, the law is what the lawmaker—e.g. Congress, in the case of statutory contempt—says it is and the Executive Branch cannot either define the meaning of the law (such powers of legislation being reserved to Congress) or interpret the law (such powers being reserved to the several Federal Courts); any attempt by the Executive to define or interpret the law would be a violation of the separation of powers; the Executive may only—and is obligated to—execute the law consistent with its definition and interpretation; and if the law specifies a duty on one of the President's subordinates, then the President must "take care" to see that the duty specified in the law is executed. To avoid or neglect the performance of this duty would not be faithful execution of the law, and would thus be a violation of the separation of powers, which the Congress and the Courts have several options to remedy.
Civil procedures[edit]
Senate Rules authorize the Senate to direct the Senate Legal Counsel to file a civil action against any private individual found in contempt. Upon motion by the Senate, the federal district court issues another order for a person to comply with Senate process. If the subject then refuses to comply with the Court's order, the person may be cited for contempt of court and may incur sanctions imposed by the Court. The process has been used at least six times; but the civil procedure can only be used against Executive branch officials "in certain limited circumstances."
Since 1975 15 people have been held in contempt
2013/06/28 17:40:41
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
Is that official. I have contempt of Congress, does that count too?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2013/06/28 17:45:17
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
d-usa wrote: MMFA is not the same organization as the Media Matters Action Network, which is organized as a 501(c)(4) and not a (3).
True, but I would argue that a 501(c)(3) which funds a 501(c)(4) that engages in political activity is, itself, engaged in political activity.
Isn't that the whole reason why so many places made both of them. People donate to the one that doesn't have to disclose donors, and that organization then makes donations to the one that has to disclose.
So Organization A reports "we got lots of donations from Organization B" and organization B reports "we got money, it's secret though".
Which is stupid in and off itself, despite the whole "who is targeting who" and "who is engaged in what" thing going on.
Isn't that basically laundering money, then?
2013/06/28 17:49:50
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
d-usa wrote: MMFA is not the same organization as the Media Matters Action Network, which is organized as a 501(c)(4) and not a (3).
True, but I would argue that a 501(c)(3) which funds a 501(c)(4) that engages in political activity is, itself, engaged in political activity.
Isn't that the whole reason why so many places made both of them. People donate to the one that doesn't have to disclose donors, and that organization then makes donations to the one that has to disclose.
So Organization A reports "we got lots of donations from Organization B" and organization B reports "we got money, it's secret though".
Which is stupid in and off itself, despite the whole "who is targeting who" and "who is engaged in what" thing going on.
Isn't that basically laundering money, then?
Arguably... but, this form's is legal here in the states.
Look at The Tide Foundation...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/28 17:50:07
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/06/28 18:46:54
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
The House Oversight Committee on Friday approved a resolution that says Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment right last month by claiming innocence during a congressional hearing.
The panel called Lerner to testify on May 14 about inappropriate screening and scrutiny the IRS had applied to groups seeking tax-exempt status.
Before invoking her privilege against self-incrimination, Lerner, whose lawyers have said she is part of a Justice Department criminal investigation, made a brief statement to the committee.
“I have not done anything wrong,” she said. “I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.”
Good to know they are aligned with the SCOTUS that the 5th doesn't mean much anymore.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2013/06/28 18:52:18
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
The House Oversight Committee on Friday approved a resolution that says Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment right last month by claiming innocence during a congressional hearing.
The panel called Lerner to testify on May 14 about inappropriate screening and scrutiny the IRS had applied to groups seeking tax-exempt status.
Before invoking her privilege against self-incrimination, Lerner, whose lawyers have said she is part of a Justice Department criminal investigation, made a brief statement to the committee.
“I have not done anything wrong,” she said. “I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.”
Good to know they are aligned with the SCOTUS that the 5th doesn't mean much anymore.
Here's the problem...
In a court room, Lerner's response is a textbook case of waiving your 5th.
However, what's muddy here is this is in Congress. Does it apply in the same manner?
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/06/28 20:05:42
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
I don't think so. Congress has its own rules so what works in a normal court room won't necessarily work there.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: I don't think so. Congress has its own rules so what works in a normal court room won't necessarily work there.
Yeah... unless, there's some good dirt on Lerner, she'd be advised to shutup and say I invoke my 5th repeatedly.
In other news, the Chicago Tribune Op-Ed calling for Special Prosecuter:
"It's inexcusable, and Americans are right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it. I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency, but especially in the IRS, given the power that it has and the reach that it has into all of our lives. ... I'll do everything in my power to make sure nothing like this happens again by holding the responsible parties accountable ...."
— President Barack Obama condemning "misconduct" at the Internal Revenue Service, May 15, 2013
All of us understand that IRS misconduct, right? And we know which parties Obama needs to hold accountable. It's obvious, right? End of story:
We learned at the get-go of this scandal that, during a long run-up to the 2012 presidential election, IRS officials extensively hassled conservative groups that had applied for tax-exempt status. Congressional Republicans pounced on this as an attempt to hijack the election.
But wait. Early last week we read that the agency used keywords such as "progressive" to target left-leaning groups, too, for extra scrutiny. "New IRS chief: Lists targeted more than tea partyers," said the Chicago Tribune. "Documents Show Liberals in I.R.S. Dragnet," said The New York Times. Congressional Democrats pounced on the suggestion that the agency had treated conservatives and liberals with equal indignity.
But wait some more. On Wednesday a Treasury Department inspector general undercut the equal-abuse argument: From May 2010 to May 2012, the IRS had flagged for added scrutiny six of the 20 applicant groups with words such as "progressive" in their titles. "In comparison, our audit found that 100 percent of the (292) tax-exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases" — that is, groups possibly too political to merit tax-exempt status. "While we have multiple sources of information corroborating the use of tea party and other related criteria," wrote Inspector General J. Russell George, "including employee interviews, emails and other documents, we found no indication in any of these other materials that 'progressives' was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political-campaign intervention."
Translation: The IRS was overwhelmingly one-sided in scrutinizing applications. And the agency evidently was completely one-sided in subjecting only conservative groups to long processing delays and lengthy, often peculiar requests. Example: The IRS asked an Iowa anti-abortion group "how all of your activities, including the prayer meetings held outside of Planned Parenthood, are considered educational as defined under 501(c)(3) ...."
So that's where things stand — until fresh reporting, a document leak or perhaps a confession sends the story in some new direction. But seven weeks into this scandal, the fact most Americans know best is that ... they still don't know much that's definitive. The murky intrigue over who provoked what at this agency has become a playpen for politicians. Three among many crucial questions still scream for answers:
•Did someone nudge IRS employees to hassle certain groups or did agency officials spontaneously decide to do that?
•Inspector General George has testified that in June 2012, five months before the election, he told top Treasury Department officials of his probe into IRS targeting. Did his news, with its potential to rock the presidential campaign, stop atop Treasury — or did it make its way even higher in the administration?
•At multiple points in 2012, why did top IRS officials repeatedly mislead Congress by not disclosing — in response to highly specific questions — that the agency was targeting conservative groups?
We can only speculate on which tools will unlock the grimy secrets of this egregious misuse of government authority. An ongoing self-examination by the IRS is laughably untrustworthy. The U.S. Department of Justice also is on the case.
But as we wrote May 23, many Americans won't be much interested in what one arm of the Obama administration concludes about the conduct of other arms — the IRS, the Treasury and possibly the White House. There are times when only a special prosecutor has the independence and credibility to resolve such a politically fraught matter.
Why hasn't Attorney General Eric Holder appointed a special prosecutor? The White House, too, should be clamoring for one: The feds are only three months from enrolling Americans in Obamacare, a program that relies on citizens' willingness to have the IRS even more involved in the financial details of their lives.
We applauded when Obama said he would make sure there will be no such future scandal. But lofty pledges aren't enough. The president and his underlings ought to be instructing a special prosecutor to unravel the still mysterious scandal that confronts them today.
I'm not so convinced that Special Prosecuter is needed... but, eh... who knows.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/06/29 21:43:55
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
To be sure you can invoke the 5th. Doesn't stop Congress from locking you up until such time as you decide to talk.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
