Exploding IRS scandal.

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

davmat787

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2010
5,512
24
76
If you look at the ideological span in the entire first world, the US has no real "left." Our mainstream left isn't even dead center in the rest of the first world. We have some real leftists here, but they aren't all that numerous.

Of course, if you want to contain the definitions to the spectrum available in the US, then whatever is further left her is "far left" by definition. However, that's a pretty constrained view of all possible ideologies.

So what term do you want people to use instead of left, in the context of US politics? Seems silly to say "just-to-right-of-centerers". And "left" IS accurate as it is being used to describe a group that is indeed left of the right. Context matters.

My only point is I think we all know what it means when we use the terms left and right in the context of US politics. Sure, it may mean something else abroad, but for our purposes, it works fine if you remember to calibrate your political spectrum analyzer when you wake up.

Titles change in context, but we all know what group the label refers to. I don't think we are in disagreement, other than maybe finding it silly whenever someone has to trot out the "there is no left in the US" line, as if that makes the point or argument moot that the term was being used in. :)
 

Schmide

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2002
5,712
978
126
DUH Wrong thread

Daily Show tonight 6/17

Evangelical Christians under attack second segment.

Incorruptible please post pictures of your mind being blown!
 
Last edited:

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,352
16,728
136
So what term do you want people to use instead of left, in the context of US politics? Seems silly to say "just-to-right-of-centerers". And "left" IS accurate as it is being used to describe a group that is indeed left of the right. Context matters.

My only point is I think we all know what it means when we use the terms left and right in the context of US politics. Sure, it may mean something else abroad, but for our purposes, it works fine if you remember to calibrate your political spectrum analyzer when you wake up.

Titles change in context, but we all know what group the label refers to. I don't think we are in disagreement, other than maybe finding it silly whenever someone has to trot out the "there is no left in the US" line, as if that makes the point or argument moot that the term was being used in. :)


Except that the right uses the word left as a false narrative to further push their agenda. By not acknowledging where the so called left sit on the political spectrum you (as in everyone) gives those less politically intelligent an easy out and a distorted political view of today's politics.

If healthcare was marketed as being a centrist political policy as opposed to a policy by the "left", not only would more people support it as a whole (they already support the ACA when broken down for them) but you would also have more people entering the discussion with an open mind.

But you and I both know it will never change, the right and the republicans are masters of the talking point.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
If you look at the ideological span in the entire first world, the US has no real "left." Our mainstream left isn't even dead center in the rest of the first world. We have some real leftists here, but they aren't all that numerous.

Of course, if you want to contain the definitions to the spectrum available in the US, then whatever is further left her is "far left" by definition. However, that's a pretty constrained view of all possible ideologies.

Our reality is this country and shadow is a citizen of this country.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
Even more about the IRS scandal and the IG audit.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/350911/why-irs-ig-stopped-audit-gerald-walpin

Among all the unanswered questions about the IRS’s illegal targeting of conservative organizations, one is most crucial: Who ordered this extreme scrutiny?

Amazingly, IRS inspector general J. Russell George, responsible for the investigation asking those questions about the IRS, has testified that he did not obtain that information.

Details of that testimony are interesting. Representative Tom Graves (R., Ga.) asked, “Have you asked the individuals who ordered them to use this extra scrutiny to punish, or penalize, or postpone, or deny?” George turns around to confer with his assistant. Just the fact that the inspector general had to confer to know the answer to this crucial question is amazing. George’s assistant says something to him that is not recorded, but one can see the assistant shaking his head back and forth. Then George responds publicly to the question, saying, “During our audit, Congressman, we did pose that question and no one would acknowledge who, if anyone, provided that direction.”

Anyone who knows anything about the rights and responsibilities of an inspector general has to be shaking his head in disbelief at George’s explanation. First, every employee of the government has the responsibility to cooperate with and provide information to an IG concerning his work. Second, George was particularly careful to limit his answer to the “audit phase.” Every IG has two procedures to obtain information. One is audit procedure, to which IG George referred. That’s generally limited to accounting analysis, to determine whether there may be reason to open an investigation. Once there is reason — and there clearly was reason here, given the obviously illegal conduct — the IG opens an investigation, in which investigators, not auditors, pose the questions, the department employees are placed under oath, and, as a federal court has approved, informed that “failure to answer completely and truthfully may result in disciplinary action, including dismissal.” The question is why George’s office didn’t do this immediately.


That reality was made apparent to me — and, through what happened to me, to all IGs — when I supported my staff of longtime dedicated civil servants, who had recommended taking action against one Kevin Johnson, a former NBA player who had misused, for personal purposes, about $750,000 of an AmeriCorps grant intended for underprivileged young people. What I did not then know was that he was a friend and supporter of President Obama — a fact that caused the proverbial you-know-what to hit the fan.

Without detailing all that happened, the bottom line was that I started to receive pressure to drop the case against Mr. Johnson. When I declined to repudiate my staff’s work, the guillotine fell: I was summarily telephoned that if I did not resign in one hour, I would be fired. And I was, along with my special assistant, John Park. The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote of my firing: “The evidence suggests that [President Obama’s] White House fired a public official who refused to roll over to protect a Presidential crony.”

........................
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
You have to love this story.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130616/NEWS/306160088?nclick_check=1

“Since the first case that came up to Washington happened to have that name, it appeared to me that that’s what they were calling it that as a shorthand, because the first case had been that,” said Holly Paz, the Internal Revenue Service’s director of rulings and agreements. She said “tea party” could mean any political group, just like “Coke” is often used as a generic term for soda, or people refer to tissues as “Kleenex.”

Yep, you read it right, this high ranking IRS official actually said that "Tea Party" didn't really mean a conservative group, but just a political group, any political group. She must have been taking lying lessons from some of the Obama apologists in this forum.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Except that the right uses the word left as a false narrative to further push their agenda. By not acknowledging where the so called left sit on the political spectrum you (as in everyone) gives those less politically intelligent an easy out and a distorted political view of today's politics.

If healthcare was marketed as being a centrist political policy as opposed to a policy by the "left", not only would more people support it as a whole (they already support the ACA when broken down for them) but you would also have more people entering the discussion with an open mind.

But you and I both know it will never change, the right and the republicans are masters of the talking point.
We see this all the time. The only way the left can compete in the marketplace of ideas is to pretend it doesn't exist and therefore all its ideas are center, when not actually pretending that its ideas are actually the right's ideas.

And the conceit that the left's only problem is marketing is especially laughable given that all the major media outlets except Fox News (with an audience which is small compared to any network news broadcast's even if large compared to those of CNN & MSNBC) are in bed with the left. When we have ABC devoting an entire day to pushing Obamacare, without even allowing dissenting voices to buy time to present an alternative viewpoint, the concept that people like Karl Rove and George W Bush and Darrel Issa are simply too smart and well-versed in communications is especially ridiculous.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106

IG George also didn't know that Holly Paz, the top attorney in the Washington EO branch and who served under Lois Lerner, sat in on almost every interview conducted by the IG staff. That's unprecedented.

When you're conducting an 'investigation' (actually an audit in this case) you do not allow the boss to sit in when interviewing the employees, not if you want the truth. The employee can not be expected to disclose anything that might be negative, or contradictory to the boss.

This is a mess.

BTW: It appears that the IRS has STILL failed to comply with the House Committees request for additional data, including a list of all the groups targeted by this special IRS group in EO.

Fern
 
Last edited:

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0

In refutation to the typical Huffblo story.

IRS Tea Party Targeting Was Directed From D.C.



Scandal: A D.C.-based supervisor in the IRS's tax-exempt status division has indicated during interviews with congressional investigators that the targeting was deliberate and not run by rogue agents in Cincinnati.

Holly Paz, who until recently was a top deputy in the IRS division that handles applications for tax-exempt status, told congressional investigators she was personally involved in reviewing Tea Party applications for tax-exempt status as far back as 2010, reviewing as many as 30.

The involvement of Paz thickens the plot considerably and shatters the theory that two rogue agents in Cincinnati got bored in their cubicles one day and decided to target for special scrutiny Tea Party and other conservative groups.


Paz's supervisor was Lois Lerner, who headed the tax-exempt division. It was on May 22, the day after Paz was interviewed by investigators, that Lerner refused to answer questions from lawmakers at a congressional hearing, citing her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself.

Was Lerner worried about what Paz had told investigators and that her testimony would contradict Paz's?

http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...ly-paz-targeted-tea-party-from-washington.htm

Lol at your continuing attempt to lie, stonewall and coverup the illegal acts of the Obama administration.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Let me go on record and say that I do not believe this was instigated by a "conservative Republican". Nor do I believe that groups with "Tea Party" or "Patriot" in their names were placed in limbo for over two years, with their donor lists demanded and then illegally fed to progressive groups, while other groups were routinely approved, from any desire to provide them with fair and consistent treatment. Nor do I believe that requirements that entire case files be sent to the D.C. office can reasonably be considered to be consistent with rogue agents in the Cincinnati office.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/11/how-irs-tea-party-targeting-started/2411515/
Muthert began flagging the Tea Party cases as an "emerging issue," meaning that the cases might raise new legal issues that should be looked at by tax law specialists. In effect, that meant that the Tea Party cases were put in a "holding pattern," Muthert said.

Elizabeth Hofacre, the Cincinnati coordinator for emerging issues, put it another way: "These cases were basically in a black hole," she told internal IRS reviewers in 2012.

Hofacre, who had been working on tax-exempt determinations in Cincinnati for 11 years, said the way the IRS handled Tea Party cases was unprecedented. She said she was "micromanaged to death" by an IRS lawyer who worked in Washington. Every piece of correspondence had to be reviewed by Washington. She was asked to fax entire case files to Washington. "I thought it was ridiculous. I mean, I don't understand why they didn't just take the files up (to Washington)," she told the Oversight Committee staffers.

Tea Party groups started to complain, but she was powerless to move the cases, she said.

"It was like working in lost luggage. You are getting it from everywhere. Irate taxpayers. It wasn't a good place to be," Hofacre said. She soon asked for a transfer. "This is a really sensitive issue, and I was just concerned to be associated with it because it was a particular political movement," she said.

In July 2010, the IRS developed what was called a BOLO list — for "be on the lookout." It instructed agents to send Hofacre applications from "organizations involved with the Tea Party movement." Investigators have not yet established who created or authorized that list; such lists did not exist before 2010.

She told congressional investigators that she understood the purpose of the list was to target conservative and Republican groups. "A lot of the platforms in the Tea Party are similar to that of Republican groups." she said.

Other political groups did not get handled the same way, Hofacre said. "I did see some with progressive issues. And I sent them back to the specialist and said they needed to develop the case," she said. "I was tasked to do Tea Parties, and I wasn't — I wasn't equipped or set up to do anything else."

That meant that other political groups were approved routinely. A USA TODAY review of tax exemptions granted at the time shows dozens of liberal groups got tax exemptions while Tea Party groups were on hold.

STORY: IRS approved liberal groups while Tea Party in limbo

A year later, Exempt Organizations Director Lois Lerner asked for clarification on the criteria being used to identify Tea Party cases. Lerner — the IRS official in Washington responsible for all exempt organizations — has refused to answer questions before the oversight committee, citing her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

"What criteria are being used to label a case a 'Tea Party case'?" wrote Holly Paz, director of Rulings and Agreements, in a June 2, 2011 e-mail. "We want to think about whether those criteria are resulting in over-inclusion. Lois wants a briefing on these cases."

As a result, Shafer came up with another set of BOLO criteria that IRS officials later admitted were just as problematic. They included groups whose "issues include government spending, government debt and taxes" and groups "critical of how the country is being run."

Shafer denied any political animus in those criteria. A self-described "conservative Republican," he told oversight committee staffers last week that he had no reason to believe the White House was involved in the targeting. "I do not believe that the screening of these cases had anything to do (with it) other than consistency and identifying issues that needed to have further development," he said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-progressive-groups/2158831/
WASHINGTON -- In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked.

That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn't be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months.

In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows.

STORY: IRS gave liberals a pass; Tea Party groups put on hold

As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with liberal-sounding names had their applications approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," the liberal groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups. They included:

• Bus for Progress, a New Jersey non-profit that uses a red, white and blue bus to "drive the progressive change." According to its website, its mission includes "support (for) progressive politicians with the courage to serve the people's interests and make tough choices." It got an IRS approval as a social welfare group in April 2011.

• Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment says it fights against corporate welfare and for increasing the minimum wage. "It would be fair to say we're on the progressive end of the spectrum," said executive director Jeff Ordower. He said the group got tax-exempt status in September 2011 in just nine months after "a pretty simple, straightforward process."

• Progress Florida, granted tax-exempt status in January 2011, is lobbying the Florida Legislature to expand Medicaid under a provision of the Affordable Care Act, one of President Obama's signature accomplishments. The group did not return phone calls. "We're busy fighting to build a more progressive Florida and cannot take your call right now," the group's voice mail said.

Like the Tea Party groups, the liberal groups sought recognition as social welfare groups under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, based on activities like "citizen participation" or "voter education and registration."

In a conference call with reporters last week, the IRS official responsible for granting tax-exempt status said that it was a mistake to subject Tea Party groups to additional scrutiny based solely on the organization's name. But she said ideology played no part in the process.

"The selection of these cases where they used the names was not a partisan selection," said Lois Lerner, director of exempt organizations. She said progressive groups were also selected for greater scrutiny based on their names, but did not provide details. "I don't have them off the top of my head," she said.

The IRS did not respond to follow-up questions Tuesday.

Congressional critics say the IRS's actions suggest a political motives: "This administration seems to have a culture of politics above all else," said Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas. "A lot of the actions they take have a political side first, and put government second."

Flores complained to the IRS last year after the Waco Tea Party's tax-exempt application was mired in red tape. The IRS asked the group for information that was "overreaching and impossible to comply with," Flores said: Transcripts of radio interviews, copies of social media posts and details on "close relationships" with political candidates.

When Flores complained last year -- asking pointed questions about the IRS treatment of Tea Party groups -- the IRS response didn't acknowledge that it had treated conservative groups differently. "They did more than sidestep the issue," he said. "They flipped me the finger."

Before the IRS started separating out Tea Party applications, getting tax-exempt status was routine -- even for conservative groups. The Champaign Tea Party's treasurer, Karen Olsen, said the process was smooth, with no follow-up questions from the IRS.

Olsen, a retired IRS revenue agent, defended the agency.

"If you suddenly see a great increase in some kind of activity, and you don't understand why, then it might be reasonable to look more closely at what's happening with those applications," she said. "I'm not certain that there was an error on the part of the IRS at all. I know that's not a popular opinion."

Some liberal groups did get additional scrutiny, although they still got their tax-exempt status while the Tea Party moratorium was in effect. For the "independent progressive" group Action for a Progressive Future, which runs the Rootsaction.org web site, the tax-exempt process took 18 months and also involved intrusive questions.

Co-founder Jeff Cohen said tax-exempt status is a privilege, so he didn't mind answering the intrusive questions, as long as those questions were consistent and fair.

"From my perspective, if the IRS can hold up legitimate Tea Party applications today and get away with it, then who knows if progressive groups will be held up and specially scrutinized in a few years. It's utterly unacceptable, if that's what happened," he said.
From the start of the moratorium, no conservative groups received certification for 27 months, whereas liberal groups received certification in as little as 9 to as many as 18 months.

At this point one has to wonder if proggies are really this stupid or just so convinced of their political strength as to no longer have to even try to make a convincing lie.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Lies, lies, and more lies from the Obama administration. Any credibility that they may have once enjoyed is now gone. The King wears no clothes.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
Quote it and bold it in your own words, kid. Since nothing you actually did quote and bold supported the title.

Scandal: A D.C.-based supervisor in the IRS's tax-exempt status division has indicated during interviews with congressional investigators that the targeting was deliberate and not run by rogue agents in Cincinnati.

Don't you ever get tired of lying?
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/18/cnn-poll-did-white-house-order-irs-targeting/

Washington (CNN) – A growing number of Americans believe that senior White House officials ordered the Internal Revenue Service to target conservative political groups, according to a new national poll. And a CNN/ORC International survey released Tuesday morning also indicates that a majority of the public says the controversy, which involves increased IRS scrutiny of tea party and other conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, is very important to the nation.

Last month only 37% of the public thought that the IRS controversy led to the White House, with 55% saying that agency officials acted on their own without direct orders from Washington. Now the number who say the White House directed that IRS program has increased 10 points, to 47%, virtually the same as the 49% who believe the IRS agents acted on their own.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
lol.

What a truly awesome, vivid example of how poorly educated some conservatives are. A literal lack of critical reading skills.
Oh the irony. Did you actually read the linked article?

Holly Paz (who worked for Lois Lerner) testified that the DC office knew about these alleged "rogue" agents from the very beginning. Elizabeth Hofacre was one of the "rogue" agents who testified that she was "micromanaged" by Carter Hull (IRS legal expert based in Washington DC who worked for Lois Lerner). Judging from the testimony of Paz and Hofacre, I think it's safe to say that DC was aware of the political targeting and directed activities beginning April, 2010.
 
Last edited:

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
Doc,

I think you are misunderstanding something. From the Huff article:

Transcripts leaked by Issa's office over the past few weeks have suggested that the screening of tea party groups was not something confined to the agency's Cincinnati office but rather taking place in Washington, D.C. Shafer confirms as much in his interview with the committee. But he punctures the importance of this revelation by stressing that when IRS officials say "Washington," they really mean the IRS' technical unit office in the nation's capital, not the White House or some congressional office.