Chongara wrote:
The IRS aiming increased scrutiny at groups that constantly voice loud opinions about the evil of taxes, and even talk about how not paying taxes would actually be "Patriotic"? No. I just can't believe it. That it might be suspect that entities with members that make it really clear they'd like to get around taxes at any cost... might be... abusing tax exemption provisions?! I...I...I... just, that's so unreasonable. My world.. it's.. falling apart.... it makes no sense....

I don't understand how an organization responsible for collecting taxes, would give more attention to groups that loudly and proudly talk about how they try to avoid paying taxes. My mind is blown.

Scott wrote:

Chongara wrote:
The IRS aiming increased scrutiny at groups that constantly voice loud opinions about the evil of taxes, and even talk about how not paying taxes would actually be "Patriotic"? No. I just can't believe it. That it might be suspect that entities with members that make it really clear they'd like to get around taxes at any cost... might be... abusing tax exemption provisions?! I...I...I... just, that's so unreasonable. My world.. it's.. falling apart.... it makes no sense....

I don't understand how an organization responsible for collecting taxes, would give more attention to groups that loudly and proudly talk about how they try to avoid paying taxes. My mind is blown.

^ That.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
If the IRS wanted to investigate these groups using a more appropriate methodology, people wouldn't mind. The problem was the arbitrary list of terms. If they want to use reasonable evidence based criteria for scrutiny, then fine.

I don't like the tea party at all, but this methodology was not appropriate.

And that's why it doesn't make it all better because they were targeting occupy as well. Name based criteria for scrutiny isn't good and it's obviously against their own rules.

 whembly wrote:
So... when IRS apologized for doing that... and Obama himself said that it was unacceptable... they were wrong?

o.O

#mindblown

 Rented Tritium wrote:
If the IRS wanted to investigate these groups using a more appropriate methodology, people wouldn't mind. The problem was the arbitrary list of terms. If they want to use reasonable evidence based criteria for scrutiny, then fine.

I don't like the tea party at all, but this methodology was not appropriate.

And that's why it doesn't make it all better because they were targeting occupy as well. Name based criteria for scrutiny isn't good and it's obviously against their own rules.

 whembly wrote:

Several congressmen, including Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., are requesting documents from the IRS relating to this new testimony. "As a part of this ongoing investigation, the Committees have learned that the IRS Chief Counsel's office in Washington, D.C. has been closely involved in some of the applications," Issa and others wrote in a letter to acting IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel. "Its involvement and demands for information about political activity during the 2010 election cycle appears to have caused systematic delays in the processing of Tea Party applications."

 whembly wrote:

And it looks like it was Christie O'Donnell had her tax information illegally leaked.

...
Ms. O'Donnell said she has reason to believe her political opponents were behind the scheme.

“An official with this investigation told me that there was evidence linking this inappropriate use of my tax records with the Delaware political leadership, Delaware political leaders on both sides of the aisle,” she said, though she declined to identify the official with whom she spoke.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Several congressmen, including Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., are requesting documents from the IRS relating to this new testimony. "As a part of this ongoing investigation, the Committees have learned that the IRS Chief Counsel's office in Washington, D.C. has been closely involved in some of the applications," Issa and others wrote in a letter to acting IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel. "Its involvement and demands for information about political activity during the 2010 election cycle appears to have caused systematic delays in the processing of Tea Party applications."

Even if that is the case, the actions of the IRS would still be legal.

 whembly wrote:

And it looks like it was Christie O'Donnell had her tax information illegally leaked.

...
Ms. O'Donnell said she has reason to believe her political opponents were behind the scheme.

“An official with this investigation told me that there was evidence linking this inappropriate use of my tax records with the Delaware political leadership, Delaware political leaders on both sides of the aisle,” she said, though she declined to identify the official with whom she spoke.

Well, it is Christine O'Donnell...so I'm going to take a pass on believing that story.

If it is true then yes, it absolutely was illegal.

 whembly wrote:

But wrong, right?

 whembly wrote:

Yup... it happened. She even named names. I mean, if she just said "IRS is unfairly targeting me"... that's one thing. But, when she actual named the IRS personell? That gives a little bit more credibility.

Still needs to be investigated.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

But wrong, right?

I'm not sure.

I have many complicated opinions regarding the NPO segment of the tax code. But, in general, I think that any corporation which defines itself in an explicitly political manner should be singled out for additional review.

 whembly wrote:

Yup... it happened. She even named names. I mean, if she just said "IRS is unfairly targeting me"... that's one thing. But, when she actual named the IRS personell? That gives a little bit more credibility.

Still needs to be investigated.

Well, no, it didn't happen. The story you quoted did not indicate that O'Donnell's tax information was illegally leaked, only that it may have been illegally requested by the IRS.

 whembly wrote:

I'm wondering if all of this treads dangerously close to the Hatch Act.

 whembly wrote:

Eh... not quite dude... it really was an official in Delaware state government (translated: Democratic operative) had improperly accessed her records on that very same day she announced her Senatorial candidancy.

 whembly wrote:
So... when IRS apologized for doing that... and Obama himself said that it was unacceptable... they were wrong?

o.O

#mindblown

Scott wrote:

Cry moar. When what I assume is your preferred party retakes the WH, I'll be ready for them to do their own profiling. The wheel turns....

The IRS scandal was connected this week not just to the Washington office—that had been established—but to the office of the chief counsel.

That is a bombshell—such a big one that it managed to emerge in spite of an unfocused, frequently off-point congressional hearing in which some members seemed to have accidentally woken up in the middle of a committee room, some seemed unaware of the implications of what their investigators had uncovered, one pretended that the investigation should end if IRS workers couldn’t say the president had personally called and told them to harass his foes, and one seemed to be holding a filibuster on Pakistan.

Still, what landed was a bombshell. And Democrats know it. Which is why they are so desperate to make the investigation go away. They know, as Republicans do, that the chief counsel of the IRS is one of only two Obama political appointees in the entire agency.

 Frazzled wrote:
Republicans must have hit paydirt. Obama just came out to stir the Zimmerman pot some more.
Distract...distract...distract...

Frazzled wrote:Its typical though. Instead of saying we need to use this as an excuse to come together blah blah its I could have been TM and we need to use this as an excuse to overcome proven laws and blah blah.

uniter my ass.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Its typical though. Instead of saying we need to use this as an excuse to come together blah blah its I could have been TM and we need to use this as an excuse to overcome proven laws and blah blah.

uniter my ass.

"Proven laws" is quite nebulous, and using Zimmerman's very-easy-to-predict "not guilty" verdict to justify the law is a circular argument. SYG is a terrible law, in that it has an excellent intention behind it but abysmally generalized wording.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.
776.031 Use of force in defense of others.—A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1189, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 2005-27.

 Frazzled wrote:
distract distract distract

and it works

On Monday, we learned that the IRS didn't single out tea party groups after all. Instead, they were looking for political groups, including not just tea party groups, but progressive groups as well. They may have used a flawed method for flagging the groups, but the IRS's intent was clear: to identify political groups that were not legally entitled to receive the tax-exempt benefit they sought to receive.
That pretty much brought the IRS "scandal" to a screeching halt. In the hours following the revelation, Darrell Issa's Twitter feed suddenly started spamming tweets about Benghazi. "Change the subject, quickly!" he seemed to be saying.

But there's still a question to be answered. If the IRS was targeting political groups from across the ideological spectrum, where did the original narrative about tea party targeting come from? The answer makes Darrell Issa and his fellow House Republicans look even worse than they did on Monday:

The Treasury inspector general (IG) whose report helped drive the IRS targeting controversy says it limited its examination to conservative groups because of a request from House Republicans.

A spokesman for Russell George, Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, said they were asked by House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) “to narrowly focus on Tea Party organizations.”

Obviously, if Issa wanted a comprehensive investigation, he should have asked for a review of all politically oriented scrutiny. Instead, he asked for exclusive focus on tea party and conservative groups. Under the most charitable interpretation of this, it never occurred to Darrell Issa that anyone other than the tea party groups could have been targeted. If that's true, it suggests he just doesn't care about whether the IRS "targets" anyone other than his political allies.
But I think the most likely explanation here is that Issa was simply trying to cook up a scandal, even though it did nothing to address the genuine problems with the way campaign finance and tax laws are written. He probably figured that in the best case scenario, he'd be able to get away with his fraud. And in the worst case scenario, he'd get a slap on the wrist from a few reporters, but endless approval from his political supporters. It's exactly the kind of thing you'd expect from Mr. Grand Theft Auto.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Well lookit that.

Now, I'd like to hear from Whembly about how the IRS still did something illegal, simply on the basis of someone issuing a knee-jerk apology to placate the howling jackals.

 Seaward wrote:

Does he get to use the Townhall/Big Government article in rebuttal of the DailyKos piece to rebut the DailyKos piece?

 azazel the cat wrote:
Well lookit that.

Now, I'd like to hear from Whembly about how the IRS still did something illegal, simply on the basis of someone issuing a knee-jerk apology to placate the howling jackals.

 dogma wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

Does he get to use the Townhall/Big Government article in rebuttal of the DailyKos piece to rebut the DailyKos piece?

This one?

Because nothing in there supports the idea that anyone in the IRS, or the IRS itself, did anything illegal with regard to targeting any particular group.

Rather, it indicates that the IRS targeted 501(c)(3)s and 501(c)(4)s which appeared to be political in nature*. It further indicates that conservative groups were accorded scrutiny which was not applied to liberal groups, and that it was probably politically motivated. I think both of these points are spot on.

Unfortunately it really doesn't matter because the IRS is not legally prohibited from applying that sort of scrutiny to applications for NPO status. Congressional Republicans, instead of addressing the root issue (the poorly written NPO segment of the tax code) have chosen to engage in a political witch hunt; thereby forcing Congressional Democrats to act defensively. Obviously this is the rational choice as it will see them reelected, while legislative action will not.


*Something they are legally required to do.