Two Republican lawmakers and a conservative legal group are crying foul over the Justice Department’s selection of a Democratic donor to lead the agency’s investigation into the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of advocacy groups during the 2010 and 2012 election cycles.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) issued a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday saying DOJ trial attorney Barbara Bosserman’s involvement is “highly inappropriate and has compromised the administration’s investigation of the IRS.” They asked that the department remove her from the case.

Bosserman has donated a combined $6,750 to President Obama’s election campaigns and the Democratic National Committee since 2004, with the vast majority of the contributions coming during the last two presidential election cycles, according to federal campaign-finance records.
The American Center for Law and Justice, which is representing 41 organizations suing the IRS over its actions, criticized the appointment of Bosserman to lead the investigation in a statement on Thursday.

“Appointing an avowed political supporter of President Obama to head up the Justice Department probe is not only disturbing but puts politics right in the middle of what is supposed to be an independent investigation to determine who is responsible for the Obama administration’s unlawful targeting of conservative and tea party groups,” said ACLJ chief counsel Jay Sekulow.

The Justice Department contends that there was nothing improper about naming Bosserman to lead the investigation and that considering her political leanings would have been inappropriate.

“It is contrary to department policy and a prohibited personnel practice under federal law to consider the political affiliation of career employees or other non-merit factors in making personnel decisions,” DOJ spokeswoman Dena Iverson said in a statement. “Additionally, removing a career employee from an investigation or case due to political affiliation, as Chairmen Issa and Jordan have requested, could also violate the equal opportunity policy and the law.”

 whembly wrote:
Well... give it a chance. You never know.

Remember Scooter Libby?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Well... give it a chance. You never know.

Remember Scooter Libby?

Do I have to?

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Well... give it a chance. You never know.

Remember Scooter Libby?

Do I have to?

Patrick Fitzgerald's was once claimed to be an insider to Bush's inner circle... but, he still nailed Scooter for lying.

LOS ANGELES — In a famously left-leaning Hollywood, where Democratic fund-raisers fill the social calendar, Friends of Abe stands out as a conservative group that bucks the prevailing political winds.

A collection of perhaps 1,500 right-leaning players in the entertainment industry, Friends of Abe keeps a low profile and fiercely protects its membership list, to avoid what it presumes would result in a sort of 21st-century blacklist, albeit on the other side of the partisan spectrum.

Now the Internal Revenue Service is reviewing the group’s activities in connection with its application for tax-exempt status. Last week, federal tax authorities presented the group with a 10-point request for detailed information about its meetings with politicians like Paul D. Ryan, Thaddeus McCotter and Herman Cain, among other matters, according to people briefed on the inquiry.

The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the organization’s confidentiality strictures, and to avoid complicating discussions with the I.R.S.

Those people said that the application had been under review for roughly two years, and had at one point included a demand — which was not met — for enhanced access to the group’s security-protected website, which would have revealed member names. Tax experts said that an organization’s membership list is information that would not typically be required. The I.R.S. already had access to the site’s basic levels, a request it considers routine for applications for 501(c)(3) nonprofit status.

Friends of Abe — the name refers to Abraham Lincoln — has strongly discouraged the naming of its members. That policy even prohibits the use of cameras at group events, to avoid the unwilling identification of all but a few associates — the actors Gary Sinise, Jon Voight and Kelsey Grammer, or the writer-producer Lionel Chetwynd, for instance — who have spoken openly about their conservative political views.

The I.R.S. request comes in the face of a continuing congressional investigation into the agency’s reviews of political nonprofits, most of them conservative-leaning, which provoked outrage on the right and forced the departure last year of several high-ranking I.R.S. officials. But unlike most of those groups, which had sought I.R.S. approval for a mix of election campaigning and nonpartisan issue advocacy, Friends of Abe is seeking a far more restrictive tax status, known as 501(c)(3), that would let donors claim a tax deduction, but strictly prohibits any form of partisan activity.

The group is not currently designated tax-exempt, but it behaves as a nonprofit and has almost no formal structure, people briefed on the matter said. The I.R.S. review will determine whether Friends of Abe receives tax-exempt status that would provide legal footing similar to that of the People for the American Way Foundation, a progressive group fostered by the television producer Norman Lear and others. If not, Friends of Abe could
resort to the courts, or it might simply operate as a nonprofit, but it would be unable to receive tax-deductible contributions.

Jeremy Boreing, executive director of Friends of Abe, declined on Wednesday to discuss details of the tax review, but said the group would continue regardless of outcome.

“Certainly, it’s been a long process,” he said.

“Friends of Abe has absolutely no political agenda,” he added. “It exists to create fellowship among like-minded individuals.”

People for the American Way, Mr. Lear’s group, stands as something of a liberal counterpart to Friends of Abe, though the organization is far larger, with an affiliate that spends millions of dollars a year on issue advocacy in Washington and beyond. But the entertainment industry has been crisscrossed by progressive groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council, which maintains a tax-exempt educational adjunct under the 501(c)(3) provision, and includes the producer Laurie David and the actor Leonardo DiCaprio among its trustees. Another, the American Foundation for Equal Rights, is a nonprofit that supports marriage rights for gay people and counts the producer Bruce Cohen and the writer Dustin Lance Black among its founders.

In the request last week, tax officials combined broad questions about membership criteria and social events, according to the people briefed on the matter, with pointed queries about meetings with a Los Angeles mayoral candidate, Kevin James, and Republican politicians like Mr. Ryan, Mr. Cain and Rick Santorum.

Officials particularly wanted to know why a speech introducing Mr. Cain at a Friends of Abe event in November 2011 — when he was a presidential candidate — should not be regarded as potentially prohibited political campaign support.

While tax-exempt groups are permitted to invite candidates to speak at events, it is not uncommon for the I.R.S. to scrutinize such activities to determine whether they cross the line into partisan election activity. One issue is whether the organization invites all the qualified candidates.

“The I.R.S. would say that if you are inviting only conservative candidates, that’s a problem,” said Marcus S. Owens, a former director of the I.R.S.’s exempt organizations division. “But it’s never really been litigated.”

Ofer Lion, a lawyer representing Friends of Abe in its application for tax-exempt status, declined to comment.

Friends of Abe began about nine years ago as little more than an email chain linking conservative stars, filmmakers and other Hollywood figures who were generally reluctant to openly discuss their views. The name is a take on Friends of Bill, the circle of loyalists who have adhered to Bill Clinton over the years.

Mr. Sinise was a leading voice among those who in early 2005 gathered at Morton’s Steakhouse here for an informal dinner that members have since identified as the group’s closest approach to an actual founding moment.

As Friends of Abe grew, however, Mr. Sinise withdrew from active leadership, and Mr. Boreing, a film producer and director, took charge.

Membership has been defined mostly by access to a private website (there are no dues, but enhanced online access requires a small fee), and attendance at a growing number of events that have included meetings with political operatives like Karl Rove and Frank Luntz; politicians like Michele Bachmann and John Boehner; and media figures like Ann Coulter, Dennis Miller and Mark Levin.

The recent I.R.S. query did not mention the earlier request for access to the names of members, people briefed on the query said.

But a remaining question is whether at least some of the group’s politically oriented encounters will be interpreted as campaign activity, and weigh against its bid for tax exemption as a 501(c)(3) organization, devoted to educational or charitable work.

A spokesman for the I.R.S. on Wednesday said it was prohibited from commenting on specific taxpayer activity.

Tax officials and congressional overseers have been embroiled in a debate over the enforcement of rules that restrict campaign activity by tax-exempt groups since last year, when an I.R.S. official acknowledged that officers had improperly targeted Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny. But most of those groups were seeking recognition as so-called 501(c)(4) groups, whose ability to conduct a limited amount of campaign activity is governed by a vague patchwork of rules and standards. In November, in an effort to make the process both more transparent and more rigorous, the I.R.S. announced that it would begin formulating new rules.

 WarOne wrote:
Unfortunately, as we learn about our government:

They never learn from their past mistakes.

Only make even more head scratching decisions.

 whembly wrote:

Shocking eh?

 whembly wrote:

Still another coincidence that: IRS proposes new 501(c)(4) Rules That just so happens to cover most tea party groups.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Shocking eh?

It is quite shocking that Friends of Abe claims to have no political agenda.

At any rate, an organization like Friends of Abe likely has a great deal of commonality between its membership list, and donor list*. Given this, I can see how a request for a donor list might be described as a request for a membership list by members of Friends of Abe.



*Which all nonprofits must provide along with Form 990.[/size]

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

Still another coincidence that: IRS proposes new 501(c)(4) Rules That just so happens to cover most tea party groups.

The rule changes cover all 501(c)(4)s, not just Tea Party groups. The one most people seem to take issue with is that money expended in support of, or opposition to, a particular candidate can no longer be claimed as being spent in the interest of public welfare; a good change.

 Frazzled wrote:
Nothing besides true charities (with over 80% of expenditures are on nonpolitical charity work) and religious institutions should pay taxes. Enough of this crap on all sides.

 Frazzled wrote:
Nothing besides true charities (with over 80% of expenditures are on nonpolitical charity work) and religious institutions should pay taxes. Enough of this crap on all sides.

 whembly wrote:

I think you're getting mixed up there... it's almost never needed to provide membership/donor lists.

 whembly wrote:

Or, did you already forget that a leak of this sort by the IRS has happened in the past?

 whembly wrote:

Which this new critia excludes labor unions or the Chamber of Commerce?

 whembly wrote:

Keep in mind that the proposed change is directed only at 501(c)(4) social-welfare groups... the tax category that has of late been flooded by conservative/Tea Parth groups.

 whembly wrote:

The unions/Chamber of Commerce groups, traditionally very pro-Democrats (which file under 501(c)(5))... are largely unscathed with these proposed rule changes and can continue playing in politics.

 whembly wrote:

What the rule in fact does is recategorize as "political" all manner of educational activities that 501(c)(4) social-welfare organizations currently engage in.

 djones520 wrote:
Dogma, the leak did occur. It wasn't just a "request". The leaker has been identified. The investigation was just stonewalled due to privacy laws. Congressional investigators know who is responsible, they just can't do anything about it.

 whembly wrote:
Well... give it a chance. You never know.

Remember Scooter Libby?

 Jihadin wrote:
Us vs them is really getting old. The common peeps...like us...need to hit the damn reset

President Barack Obama maintains there’s “not even a smidgen of corruption” in the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of tea party and conservative groups, that it was just the result of “bone-headed decisions” by low-level IRS technocrats.

But testimony at a congressional hearing last week raised red flags about IRS abuse of conservatives that should trouble Americans no matter what their political leanings.

When the IRS revelations broke, Obama promised a full investigation. Yet Cleta Mitchell, an attorney for a number of tea party and conservative groups targeted by the IRS, testified, “None of my clients have received a single contact from the FBI, the DOJ [Department of Justice] or any other investigator regarding the IRS scandal.”

She detailed for a House oversight subcommittee several areas worthy of criminal investigation into the taxman’s singling out conservative groups for special scrutiny and intrusive questioning regarding their nonprofit tax status.

In 2012, then IRS commissioner Doug Shulman told Congress there had been no targeting of tea party groups even though we now know it had been going on since 2009. “The last time I checked, lying to Congress is a felony,” Mitchell said.

Confidential donor information about several conservative groups, including the National Organization for Marriage, the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the Republican Governors Public Policy Council, were leaked to their political foes or the public. “That is a crime,” she noted.

And Mitchell pointed to the elephant in the room in the IRS controversy: former IRS executive Lois Lerner invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination before the same subcommittee. “She apparently knows of criminal acts involved in this scandal.”

Also testifying was one of Mitchell’s clients, Catherine Engelbrecht, owner of a small Texas manufacturing firm who organized two non-profits, one of them True the Vote.

In running a business for two decades, she had never been investigated by the federal government. But since the beginning of her political activism in 2010, “my private business, my nonprofit organizations, and family have been subjected to more than 15 instances of audit or inquiry by federal agencies.” Those include the IRS, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol and Firearms, and the FBI.

I guess the administration wants us to believe that is all coincidence.

The top Democrat on the panel, Elijah Cummings, tried to discredit Engelbrecht by accusing True the Vote of sending poll watchers to minority districts. Engelbrecht said her group only trains election volunteers and doesn’t send them anywhere.

Conservatives are outraged that the mainstream media and many civil rights groups swallow hook, line and sinker the White House position that the IRS is a “phony scandal.”

It is unimaginable that IRS special scrutiny of liberal groups during a Republican administration would be written off as bureaucratic bungling.

To many conservatives, Obama’s assertion of “not even a smidgen of corruption” sounds a lot like another White House’s claim that Watergate was “a third-rate burglary.”

And Mitchell pointed to the elephant in the room in the IRS controversy: former IRS executive Lois Lerner invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination before the same subcommittee. “She apparently knows of criminal acts involved in this scandal.”

 djones520 wrote:

And Mitchell pointed to the elephant in the room in the IRS controversy: former IRS executive Lois Lerner invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination before the same subcommittee. “She apparently knows of criminal acts involved in this scandal.”

That's the part of the story that caught my eye more then anything else.