whembly wrote:

You damn well know what I'm talking about. So, stop getting your willies on in being this dense yo.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

You damn well know what I'm talking about. So, stop getting your willies on in being this dense yo.

No, I didn't. I don't even know how to properly articulate myself in reply as your punctuation is horrible, and you refuse to be believe that I do not understand you slang.

 Seaward wrote:

Oh, irony.

Anyway, why are you getting baited into this, whembly? The IRS could issue a press release tomorrow admitting to everything claimed, and dogma'd still be doing his usual bs, "You mistyped an accent aigu, therefore I could not understand what you meant, therefore it did not happen," sophistry.

 Seaward wrote:
Anyway, why are you getting baited into this, whembly? The IRS could issue a press release tomorrow admitting to everything claimed, and dogma'd still be doing his usual bs, "You mistyped an accent aigu, therefore I could not understand what you meant, therefore it did not happen," sophistry.

 Seaward wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

You damn well know what I'm talking about. So, stop getting your willies on in being this dense yo.

No, I didn't. I don't even know how to properly articulate myself in reply as your punctuation is horrible, and you refuse to be believe that I do not understand you slang.

Oh, irony.

Anyway, why are you getting baited into this, whembly? The IRS could issue a press release tomorrow admitting to everything claimed, and dogma'd still be doing his usual bs, "You mistyped an accent aigu, therefore I could not understand what you meant, therefore it did not happen," sophistry.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Anyway, why are you getting baited into this, whembly? The IRS could issue a press release tomorrow admitting to everything claimed, and dogma'd still be doing his usual bs, "You mistyped an accent aigu, therefore I could not understand what you meant, therefore it did not happen," sophistry.

Didn't the IRS and even Obama himself acknowledge early on that there was wrong doing?

 whembly wrote:

Yep... but he chose to ignore that.

 whembly wrote:

If the agency was proven to be used by the Democrats and the White House to target their enemies... those who actually did it are subject to criminal penalties and perhaps even large civil penalites if the targets choose to sue over lost revenue (how many donors will happily testify that they withheld funds due to fears of the IRS?). They're just now very close to seeing the rest of the iceburg here...

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Yep... but he chose to ignore that.

No, I didn't, in fact I directly addressed it over the course of several pages in one of the other threads. Indeed, I've straight up said, several times, that there was wrong-doing within the IRS.

What I refuse to do, or allow others to do, is use that fact to paint the entirety of the IRS as engaging in wrong-doing, or develop some form of conspiracy theory.

 whembly wrote:

If the agency was proven to be used by the Democrats and the White House to target their enemies... those who actually did it are subject to criminal penalties and perhaps even large civil penalites if the targets choose to sue over lost revenue (how many donors will happily testify that they withheld funds due to fears of the IRS?). They're just now very close to seeing the rest of the iceburg here...

If it could be proven in a court of law, or even be brought to trial, which are both fairly big "ifs" in this case.

Additionally I don't believe you can sue a specific agent of the state in civil court if they were acting as an agent of the state. You could definitely file a civil suit against the IRS but not, say, Lois Lerner.

 whembly wrote:

I'm sorry dogma, but from your responses, you appeared to defend their actions. As if... it's alright.

 whembly wrote:

Well then, you're confused old man... it was always the department responsible for granting those exemptions that is under scrutiny. That's not the "entirety of the IRS".

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I'm sorry dogma, but from your responses, you appeared to defend their actions. As if... it's alright.

That's because I'm only concerned with criminal actions, and absent sufficient evidence to substantiate criminality I will not pass judgment.

Any regulatory issue is an internal matter.

 whembly wrote:

Well then, you're confused old man... it was always the department responsible for granting those exemptions that is under scrutiny. That's not the "entirety of the IRS".

You just posted an article on the last page that attempted to link that office's behavior to Washington, and argued that it was evidence of "Nixonian" behavior within the Obama Administration and the IRS itself.

 whembly wrote:

Erm... that's still not the entirety of the IRS dude.

 whembly wrote:

What it does show that there were some coordination with the Washington IRS office. What does that mean? We don't know yet... but, it's awfully interesting that they've tried so hard to deny that it ever happened.

The U.S. Internal Revenue Service said today that it will revise proposed rules governing nonprofit groups’ involvement in politics.

The rules, released last year, were an attempt to provide guidance for how much political activity groups organized under section 501(c)(4) of the U.S. tax code could engage in without risking loss of their tax exemption or being forced to reveal their donors.

The IRS disclosed in May 2013 that it gave some Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status extra scrutiny because of their names, not their activities. President Barack Obama forced out acting IRS commissioner Steven Miller, and several other senior executives left their jobs, including Lois Lerner, who was the agency’s director of exempt organizations.

The rules, designed to provide clearer guidelines for IRS employees, were part of the government’s response to the issue.

Some actions would be considered political involvement, including advertising, voter guides, voter-registration drives, get-out-the-vote campaigns, Internet references to candidates and some appearances by candidates at groups’ events.

Under the proposed rules, a group would risk losing its tax-exempt status by engaging in too many of those activities, though the rules didn’t define what would be considered too much.

150,000 Comments

After the IRS released the new rules, groups across the political spectrum objected with more than 150,000 comments, calling them too broad and an attack on free speech. Opponents included the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Family Association.

Republicans called on the IRS and the Treasury Department to start over. Until today, the IRS had said it was planning a public hearing in the next few months.

“It is likely that we will make some changes to the proposed regulation in light of the comments we have received,” the IRS said in a statement today. “Given the diversity of views expressed and the volume of substantive input, we have concluded that it would be more efficient and useful to hold a public hearing after we publish the revised proposed regulation.”

Not Specified

The statement doesn’t specify how extensive the changes will be, when a new rule would be released or when it would take effect.

Orrin Hatch of Utah, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, called the IRS announcement a “long overdue step in the right direction.”

“The IRS is right to abandon its previously proposed rules governing 501(c)(4) organizations that threatened free speech and the rights of all American citizens to participate in the democratic process,” he said in a statement. “I am glad the IRS heard the concerns of hundreds of thousands of Americans, and I will continue to advocate for an IRS that is independent and nonpartisan.”

The Senate’s third-ranking Democrat, Chuck Schumer of New York, said in a statement that the delay in the rules is “deeply disappointing and a real setback for democracy and faith in government.” Schumer said he hoped the IRS would “enact a very tough rule that will equally curtail liberal and conservative groups.”

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen has previously said it was very unlikely that the process would be completed this year.

The 501(c)(4) groups, including Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, have become increasingly prominent in U.S. elections. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, they spent $256 million on the 2012 election, more than three times what they spent in 2008.

Such groups are different from super-political action committees, which disclose their donors.

The tax law says 501(c)(4) groups must be organized “exclusively” to promote social welfare. The IRS has said politics can’t be such a group’s primary purpose, leading to conflicts over how to measure politics and primary purpose.

“By encouraging the IRS to be vigilant in possible campaign-finance crimes by 501(c)(4) groups, the [Justice] Department was certainly among the entities ‘screaming’ at the IRS to do something in the wake of Citizens United before the 2010 election,” Jordan and Issa said to Holder in the Letter.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
*cough*roe vs. wade*cough*

Go Schumer! He's one of my senators.

Also, do you actually believe that the Citizens United decision was based on the constitution and not political opinion.

Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy explained that “[t]he fact that a corporation, or any other speaker, is willing to spend money to try to persuade voters presupposes that the people have the ultimate influence over elected officials.”

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
*cough*roe vs. wade*cough*

Que?

Go Schumer! He's one of my senators.

Also, do you actually believe that the Citizens United decision was based on the constitution and not political opinion.

That's... a big can-o-worms...

Here's the ruling:

Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast.

Here's a key blurb by the majority written by Justice Kennedy:

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy explained that “[t]he fact that a corporation, or any other speaker, is willing to spend money to try to persuade voters presupposes that the people have the ultimate influence over elected officials.”

It is argued that the SC has made the application of the 1st amendment principles to political campaigns more rational and consistent. They argue that neither Congress nor the executive branch provided any hard evidence of actual corrupting influences from campaign expenditures, while on the other hand corporations have a valuable role to play in political debate and public discourse.

But, man... this is one topic that is really hotly contested.

However, I did like that one objecting Montana Justice when he said something like: "Putting individuals and corporations on the same level, “it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons.” "

 whembly wrote:
Guess the IRS won't move forward with the proposed changes to Political non-profit status after all:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Guess the IRS won't move forward with the proposed changes to Political non-profit status after all:

When did it say it would?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
*cough*roe vs. wade*cough*

Que?

Joke, "Funny how the Democrats cannot abide by the rulings of the Supreme Court, huh?"

Go Schumer! He's one of my senators.

Aw, come on, he's fun.

Also, do you actually believe that the Citizens United decision was based on the constitution and not political opinion.

That's... a big can-o-worms...

Here's the ruling:

Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast.

Here's a key blurb by the majority written by Justice Kennedy:

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy explained that “[t]he fact that a corporation, or any other speaker, is willing to spend money to try to persuade voters presupposes that the people have the ultimate influence over elected officials.”

It is argued that the SC has made the application of the 1st amendment principles to political campaigns more rational and consistent. They argue that neither Congress nor the executive branch provided any hard evidence of actual corrupting influences from campaign expenditures, while on the other hand corporations have a valuable role to play in political debate and public discourse.

But, man... this is one topic that is really hotly contested.

However, I did like that one objecting Montana Justice when he said something like: "Putting individuals and corporations on the same level, “it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons.” "

That is a good quote . I just wanted to know, as you are most definitely conservative. I haven't seen many people who think that it was actually based on constitutional law.

 whembly wrote:

It was a proposal...

The Internal Revenue Service may have been caught violating federal tax law: In October 2010, the agency sent a database on 501(c)(4) social-welfare groups containing confidential taxpayer information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, according to documents obtained by a House panel.

The information was transmitted in advance of former IRS official Lois Lerner’s meeting the same month with Justice Department officials about the possibility of using campaign-finance laws to prosecute certain nonprofit groups. E-mails between Lerner and Richard Pilger, the director of the Justice Department’s election-crimes branch, obtained through a subpoena to Attorney General Eric Holder, show Lerner asking about the format in which the FBI preferred the data to be sent.

“This revelation that the IRS sent 1.1 million pages of nonprofit tax-return data — including confidential taxpayer information — to the FBI confirms suspicions that the IRS worked with the Justice Department to facilitate the potential investigation of nonprofit groups engaged in lawful political speech,” Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa, a California Republican, and subcommittee chairman Jim Jordan wrote in a letter to IRS commissioner John Koskinen. The two lawmakers also raise questions about the timing of the meeting, just weeks before the 2010 midterm elections, when Republicans recaptured a majority in the House of Representatives.

The Justice Department never prosecuted social-welfare groups, and e-mails from IRS officials show their awareness that, as a result of the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in the Citizens United case, which allowed unlimited amounts of money from nonprofit groups and labor unions to flow into the political process, the law did not favor a crackdown on anonymous donations to politically orientated nonprofits, which sprouted up on all sides in the wake of the ruling. “We don’t have the law to do something,” an IRS official responsible for tax-exempt organizations said in a September 2010 e-mail.

The documents were subpoenaed as a part of the Oversight Committee’s ongoing investigation into the IRS’ targeting of right-leaning groups, which took place against the backdrop of the Citizens United ruling. E-mails cited in a committee report released in March show that the decision caused a lot of angst for Lerner and her colleagues in the IRS’s Exempt Organizations division, and she noted in public remarks that the agency was under pressure to “fix the problem” created by the decision.

Though the Justice Department never took nonprofit groups to court, the committee has argued that Lerner attempted engaged in a politicized witch hunt against conservative groups by implementing a system where applications for tax exemption were inappropriately scrutinized and by jump-starting efforts to rewrite the rules by which 501(c)(4) social-welfare groups can qualify for tax exemption. Those rules prompted an outcry from groups on both sides of the political spectrum and the agency is currently rewriting them.

Issa and Jordan have requested from the IRS all documents relating to the transmittal of the database. “This revelation likely means that the IRS — including possibly Lois Lerner — violated federal tax law by transmitting this information to the Department of Justice in 2010,” they said.

Washington, DC – Today, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) issued the following statement regarding the Internal Revenue Service informing the Committee that they have lost Lois Lerner emails from a period of January 2009 – April 2011. Due to a supposed computer crash, the agency only has Lerner emails to and from other IRS employees during this time frame. The IRS claims it cannot produce emails written only to or from Lerner and outside agencies or groups, such as the White House, Treasury, Department of Justice, FEC, or Democrat offices.

“The fact that I am just learning about this, over a year into the investigation, is completely unacceptable and now calls into question the credibility of the IRS’s response to Congressional inquiries. There needs to be an immediate investigation and forensic audit by Department of Justice as well as the Inspector General.

“Just a short time ago, Commissioner Koskinen promised to produce all Lerner documents. It appears now that was an empty promise. Frankly, these are the critical years of the targeting of conservative groups that could explain who knew what when, and what, if any, coordination there was between agencies. Instead, because of this loss of documents, we are conveniently left to believe that Lois Lerner acted alone. This failure of the IRS requires the White House, which promised to get to the bottom of this, to do an Administration-wide search and production of any emails to or from Lois Lerner. The Administration has repeatedly referred us back to the IRS for production of materials. It is clear that is wholly insufficient when it comes to determining the full scope of the violation of taxpayer rights.”

Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Charles Boustany Jr., M.D. (R-LA) added, "In the course of the Committee's investigation, the Administration repeatedly claimed we were getting access to all relevant IRS documents. Only now - thirteen months into the investigation - the IRS reveals that key emails from the time of the targeting have been lost. And they bury that fact deep in an unrelated letter on a Friday afternoon. In that same letter, they urge Congress to end the investigations into IRS wrongdoing. This is not the transparency promised to the American people. If there is no smidgeon of corruption what is the Administration hiding?"

Key Findings:

--The President’s political rhetoric in opposition to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision and conservative nonprofits engaged in political speech led to the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of tax-exempt applicants.

--Senior White House officials, Democratic Members of Congress, and other left-wing political figures and commentators echoed the President’s rhetoric.

--The Democrat-led Congress convened hearings to examine Citizens United and considered legislation to require disclosure of contributors to nonprofits engaged in political speech. The White House and left-leaning commentators supported these measures.

--Democratic Members of Congress, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and liberal advocacy organizations urged the IRS to investigate conservative nonprofits engaged in political speech.

--The IRS internalized the political pressure urging the tax agency to take action on nonprofit political speech. In response to a news article about the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s complaint against Americans for Prosperity, Lois Lerner wrote to her boss: “We won’t be able to stay out of this – we need a plan!” Lerner later initiated a project to examine 501(c)(4) political speech in response to an article in a tax-law journal.

--As Democratic Members of Congress urged the IRS to investigate a conservative group, Crossroads GPS, Lerner asked a subordinate to look at the group. Echoing themes from the President’s rhetorical campaign and acknowledging the media attention on nonprofit political speech, Lerner wrote: “The organization at issue is Crossroads GPS, which is on the top of the list of c4 spenders in the last two elections. It is in the news regularly as an organization that is not really a c4, rather it is only doing political activity – taking in money from large contributors who wish to remain anonymous and funneling it into tight electoral races.”

--The Justice Department arranged a meeting with Lerner on October 8, 2010, after Jack Smith, Chief of the Department’s Public Integrity Section, read an article in the New York Times about the influence of nonprofits in the midterm election. The IRS sent 21 disks containing 1.1 million pages of nonprofit tax-return information – including confidential taxpayer information – to the FBI in advance of this meeting. The Justice Department and the FBI have continued a “dialogue” about potential criminal investigations of nonprofits engaged in political speech.

--The IRS enjoyed a close and mutually beneficial relationship with congressional Democrats. The IRS received tips from Democratic sources about upcoming actions concerning nonprofit political speech, and the IRS even assisted Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) in preparing letters to the agency criticizing nonprofit political speech.

 -Shrike- wrote:
I presume members of Congress should have nothing to do with the IRS, right?

 whembly wrote:

Since the tax system relies on voluntary compliance, the IRS must be seen to be scrupulously neutral.

That gets tricky when it appears that the IRS went after conservatives groups after some Democratic senators had publicly suggested this would be a good idea.

 whembly wrote:
Posting this here to keep the "lost email" thread clean.

Unless Mods think it's better to keep in one thread???