Exploding IRS scandal.

[werepossum]

It's very short sighted to think that the next Republican administration won't use this type of tactic for their own political ends. Any tactic that is successfully used by one side in a conflict will sooner or later be used by the other side. The time to constrain such abuses is always now, right now, as soon as they are revealed.

I may be a partisan Republican, but it isn't because i'm in love with Republicans, it's because I think that Democrats are just worse.

Oh, I agree again, but we do it too. It's easier for me to find fault with something the Democrats do than if the Pubbies do the same thing, because I usually dislike the Democrats more. This is why everything is proceeding as it is - no matter which party is in power and what they do, 1/3 of the people will support them, 1/3 of the people will oppose them, and 1/3 of the people will have no clue it's even going on. And that's for really major stuff, otherwise that last 1/3 can become easily 2/3 and the first two become 1/6.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's very short sighted to think that the next Republican administration won't use this type of tactic for their own political ends. Any tactic that is successfully used by one side in a conflict will sooner or later be used by the other side. The time to constrain such abuses is always now, right now, as soon as they are revealed.

I may be a partisan Republican, but it isn't because i'm in love with Republicans, it's because I think that Democrats are just worse.

Oh, I agree again, but we do it too. It's easier for me to find fault with something the Democrats do than if the Pubbies do the same thing, because I usually dislike the Democrats more. This is why everything is proceeding as it is - no matter which party is in power and what they do, 1/3 of the people will support them, 1/3 of the people will oppose them, and 1/3 of the people will have no clue it's even going on. And that's for really major stuff, otherwise that last 1/3 can become easily 2/3 and the first two become 1/6.

Great exposition of Truthiness, of believing what you believe because you want to believe it.

Not that either of you could possibly understand, Truthiness being what it is.

 

[Bowfinger]

I think Fitzgerald was out to get someone. ...

Right. You know what they say, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean everyone isn't out to get you.



By the way, you know Fitzgerald was a Republican, right? Nah, probably not. I imagine the nutter disinformation bubble disowned him as soon as he started factually refuting them.

Speaking of which ...

Fitzgerald determined early on that Plame did not qualify for covert operative protection and that no laws were broken in revealing her name. ...

I see it's been quite successful in keeping you believing revisionist history. The fact of the matter is that Fitzgerald determined Plame was covert, and that her status with the CIA was classified. He did not prosecute Armitage under the Identities Protection Act because that statute is quite narrow, and requires the leaker to know the victim's status is classified. Armitage did not have that knowledge and therefore didn't violate the law.

Fitzgerald did not prosecute Libby or Cheney because Libby opted to take the fall. He lied to obstruct the investigation. With the Plame investigation successfully stonewalled, all Fitzgerald could do was convict Libby for that obstruction.

BTW, Plame's covert status was also confirmed by an official CIA spokesman (I don't remember his name). This was the same spokesman, by the way, who called Robert Novak to try to keep Plame's name out of the media. Ironically, he couldn't tell Novak why Plame's name was off limits because acknowledging her classified status would itself violate the Identities Protection Act. Novak, not satisfied with the spokesman's vague objection, chose to expose her anyway. The rest is history.

If you ever get tired of being played, here's a link to one of the many threads on the Plame story: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=43451

 

[Bowfinger]

So mono...how's that scandal working for you,, LOL?

You know...the one where you were lied to by the GOP, shown altered documents, and where the GOP withheld all that info about how liberal groups were targeted as well? Oops, talk about being completely and utterly wrong (yet again)

You ever going to stop blindly repeating drudge? Or Hannity? Or whichever shill you listen too? LOL

Indeed. I think it's about time to correct the title of this thread from "Exploding IRS scandal" to "Imploding IRS scandal". Now that Issa's lost his ability to suppress the truth, his entire tapestry of lies and innuendo is rapidly unraveling. Much like Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and all the other Greatest!!! Scandal!!! Evars!!!111 the GOP has flogged, it once again looks like there is far, far more smoke than fire. Yet again, their blind lust to get Obama has backfired due to their own greed and dishonesty.

Which is really unfortunate, because this still has a noteworthy story at its core. While it appears likely there was no partisan intent behind the targeting (based on testimony so far), it was at a minimum poor judgment. It created an appearance of bias, even if there was no intent. There is also the issue of how some IRS management apparently tried to cover this up, a public servant like Lerner taking the Fifth, and the leak of some right-wing groups' applications. All are troubling from an agency like the IRS that absolutely must be viewed by the American public as fair, open, and above reproach. It's not the SCANDAL!!! the wing-nuts crave, but they are issues that warrant serious attention.

 

[shadow9d9]

Perhaps you should share your wondrous knowledge with the Messiah, since he seems to think he runs it.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...nnounces-resignation-of-acting-irs-chief?lite


http://www.breakingnews.com/item/ah...-ive-directed-secretary-lew-to-hold-those-res

Why, when people are asking if Obama directed the IRS to block conservative groups from not-for-profit status, all Obama has to do is point out that he cannot do that since they are an independent branch of government only supervised by Congress. Specifically, Republicans in Congress. Too bad no one on his staff is as smart and well-versed in government as are you.

Dumbass.

Anyone that uses the term messiah is a political hack. Projecting your own deficiencies on others through that pathetic talking point. You've done well for your masters.

 

[monovillage]

Great exposition of Truthiness, of believing what you believe because you want to believe it.

Not that either of you could possibly understand, Truthiness being what it is.

Sorry to hear that you still haven't managed to find your integrity Jhhnn, keep looking for it.

 

[ivwshane]

Lol!!

You gotta love threads that result in self ownage!!

Lol Benghazi!


I'll also leave my original quote from the DC thread on the same subject.

I have a feeling this is a non story. The fact is no one was denied and the IRS is required to look into every group that requests 501c4 status and it's also their duty to investigate when they learn of people/groups that might be violating the requirements of a 501c4.

In my opinion 501c4 tax status has been abused (by all parties) anyway and should be abolished.

 

[BlueWolf47]

"self implosion" could describe the entire republican party over the past 4 years.

 

[ivwshane]

"self implosion" could describe the entire republican party over the past 4 years.

And "paranoid tools" would describe the republican supporters

 

[Jhhnn]

Sorry to hear that you still haven't managed to find your integrity Jhhnn, keep looking for it.

Remarkable how you use words you've demonstrated that you can't possibly understand.

There is no integrity in truthiness, just gullibility. How much integrity can you possibly have when you're willingly played by a huckster like Issa?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Which is really unfortunate, because this still has a noteworthy story at its core. While it appears likely there was no partisan intent behind the targeting (based on testimony so far), it was at a minimum poor judgment. It created an appearance of bias, even if there was no intent. There is also the issue of how some IRS management apparently tried to cover this up, a public servant like Lerner taking the Fifth, and the leak of some right-wing groups' applications. All are troubling from an agency like the IRS that absolutely must be viewed by the American public as fair, open, and above reproach. It's not the SCANDAL!!! the wing-nuts crave, but they are issues that warrant serious attention.

This. It could also be used to maybe re-look at who should be tax exempt in the first place to make sure people aren't taking advantage of the rules.

Too bad the GOP won't admit this, and instead monovillage and them will double-down on their stupity and lies and work on inventing the next big "scandal".

I mean this is like the 3rd or 4th(??? can't keep count since they make them up so quick)) invented faux scandal already? And mono and others still fall for it every time. How pathetic.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Sorry to hear that you still haven't managed to find your integrity Jhhnn, keep looking for it.

So where is your faux outrage that Issa had these documents and he lied to you? Where is your condemnation for a GOP congressman intentionally lying to pander to the idiots?

Why aren't you insisting on a full investigation into Issa and the GOP for thier intential misleading of the American people? Another faux double standard by you?

 

[Jhhnn]

So where is your faux outrage that Issa had these documents and he lied to you? Where is your condemnation for a GOP congressman intentionally lying to pander to the idiots?

Because he's flattered that Issa panders to him, of course.

 

[werepossum]

Right. You know what they say, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean everyone isn't out to get you.



By the way, you know Fitzgerald was a Republican, right? Nah, probably not. I imagine the nutter disinformation bubble disowned him as soon as he started factually refuting them.

Speaking of which ...

I see it's been quite successful in keeping you believing revisionist history. The fact of the matter is that Fitzgerald determined Plame was covert, and that her status with the CIA was classified. He did not prosecute Armitage under the Identities Protection Act because that statute is quite narrow, and requires the leaker to know the victim's status is classified. Armitage did not have that knowledge and therefore didn't violate the law.

Fitzgerald did not prosecute Libby or Cheney because Libby opted to take the fall. He lied to obstruct the investigation. With the Plame investigation successfully stonewalled, all Fitzgerald could do was convict Libby for that obstruction.

BTW, Plame's covert status was also confirmed by an official CIA spokesman (I don't remember his name). This was the same spokesman, by the way, who called Robert Novak to try to keep Plame's name out of the media. Ironically, he couldn't tell Novak why Plame's name was off limits because acknowledging her classified status would itself violate the Identities Protection Act. Novak, not satisfied with the spokesman's vague objection, chose to expose her anyway. The rest is history.

If you ever get tired of being played, here's a link to one of the many threads on the Plame story: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=43451

I have three problems with the CIA classifying Plame as a covert agent. First, her "cover" was that she was a low level diplomat's wife. It should be axiomatic that potential human intelligence assets cannot freely meet with a US diplomat's wife, however lowly. As a covert agent her value is nil because she is openly associated with the US government. Second, Plame and Wilson were engaged in a plot to control US policy. Whether one believes they were right or wrong in the facts, it is indisputable that their actions were fundamentally dishonest. To support her assertions as an analyst, Ms Plame sent her husband, a completely untrained diplomatic corps functionary, to "investigate" her allegations. His investigation consisted of having tea with Nigerian officials and asking them if they were selling banned materials to Iraq. He then returned, wrote an op ed, and told everyone who would listen that he had been sent by Vice President Cheney when in fact Cheney had not requested that anyone go, was unaware anyone had gone, had no idea who Wilson was, and very likely had never seen his "report" even after it was published. Wilson also did this AFTER meeting with the Kerry campaign. But my biggest problem with classifying Plame as covert lies in the fact that Wilson himself was the one spreading her name around. You can't have it both ways; if Plame was a covert agent, then Fitzgerald had an obligation to prosecute Wilson, the one man who would absolutely have known if Plame was a covert agent.

Personally I think the entire Plame affair is in many ways symptomatic of the systemic problems within the CIA. The CIA is embraces its incompetency and is desirous of power without accountability. In light of Plame's behavior - which could only take place with her supervisor's consent - can anyone really be surprised that most case workers are not fluent in the languages of the countries they nominally analyze, or that the CIA is repeatedly surprised by every emerging nuclear power and revolution to come along?

 

[werepossum]

Indeed. I think it's about time to correct the title of this thread from "Exploding IRS scandal" to "Imploding IRS scandal". Now that Issa's lost his ability to suppress the truth, his entire tapestry of lies and innuendo is rapidly unraveling. Much like Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and all the other Greatest!!! Scandal!!! Evars!!!111 the GOP has flogged, it once again looks like there is far, far more smoke than fire. Yet again, their blind lust to get Obama has backfired due to their own greed and dishonesty.

Which is really unfortunate, because this still has a noteworthy story at its core. While it appears likely there was no partisan intent behind the targeting (based on testimony so far), it was at a minimum poor judgment. It created an appearance of bias, even if there was no intent. There is also the issue of how some IRS management apparently tried to cover this up, a public servant like Lerner taking the Fifth, and the leak of some right-wing groups' applications. All are troubling from an agency like the IRS that absolutely must be viewed by the American public as fair, open, and above reproach. It's not the SCANDAL!!! the wing-nuts crave, but they are issues that warrant serious attention.

The left has plenty of people like yourself working hard to make sure these scandals DON'T get serious attention. But hey, when our government can openly discriminate on the basis of political orientation, break laws for political gain, sell guns to drug cartels, tap your telephone calls and emails without cause or warrants, and freely lie to the public, at least President Obama can't tell you "you didn't build that".

 

[BlueWolf47]

The left has plenty of people like yourself working hard to make sure tparrothese scandals DON'T get serious attention. But hey, when our government can openly discriminate on the basis of political orientation, break laws for political gain, sell guns to drug cartels, tap your telephone calls and emails without cause or warrants, and freely lie to the public, at least President Obama can't tell you "you didn't build that".

Your right, we had some help with conservatives who heard the word "patriot" and thought this ''patriot act' must be awsome. Civil war reinactments for everyone!

 

[Fern]

Your "best info" obviously originates with Issa, right?

No. That's what's been reported in the media. Now, they may have gotten it from Issa, but I don't think so since these numbers were being throw around before the House investigation began.

The man cries wolf at a professional level, but the usual suspects still believe him. I suppose that's based on the principle that even a blind squirrel finds a few acorns, right?

Issa's believability isn't an issue, or shouldn't be (although I can see you're very hung up on him).

The type of work the IRS was doing will be documented, and I don't think that can be changed (forged). E.g., they receive an application on a certain day, and it will be logged in. And when a decision is made, approve or deny, it will be documented - both the decision and the date it was made on. That cannot be changed after-the-fact. Which groups were handled by the new 'special team' are fact and I don't think can be changed.

Fern

 

[sunzt]

The left has plenty of people like yourself working hard to make sure these scandals DON'T get serious attention. But hey, when our government can openly discriminate on the basis of political orientation

If this is the issue then they suck at discriminating since no GOP group was denied, but a progressive one was.

 

[werepossum]

If this is the issue then they suck at discriminating since no GOP group was denied, but a progressive one was.

For twenty-seven months only four conservative groups were approved. Within the same time period, dozens of progressive groups were approved, with time frames running from eight months to eighteen months, even though conservative group applications greatly outnumbered those of progressive groups. Donor lists of conservative groups were requested and then leaked to progressive groups, along with in-process applications. Donors to conservative groups were told by IRS agents that their contributions to conservative groups constituted gifts and therefore not paying gift taxes constituted a tax violation; donors to no progressive groups suffered such action.

Yeah, they definitely suck at discriminating, in much the same fashion as you suck at making stupid statements.

 

[werepossum]

Your right, we had some help with conservatives who heard the word "patriot" and thought this ''patriot act' must be awsome. Civil war reinactments for everyone!

Point. I myself thought the Patriot Act was no big deal. I now realize that I was wrong in the original and in its renewal, as I should have seen this coming. Power given will always be exercised.

 

[Fern]

If this is the issue then they suck at discriminating since no GOP group was denied, but a progressive one was.

If a liberal went to sign up to vote, and it wasn't approved (meaning they couldn't vote) is it OK that they weren't denied either?

The point you raise above has been addressed many times. I'll explain it again.

Most exempt orgs needs their exempt status letter from the IRS to prove they are legitimate and so can obtain funds.

If your status is denied you can then appeal it. An appeal doesn't require a lawyer, merely writing a letter saying you wish to appeal.

If your status is neither approved or denied, you can do nothing, you are in limbo.

If you are neither approved or denied after 270 days (IIRC) your only option is suing the IRS. However, that takes a good deal of money. Who has the money to fight the IRS in court? And not having your exempt status approved already makes it very difficult to raise money, so you have none to hire lawyers.

The IRS's refusal to either deny or approve is the perfect tactic to keep a group from doing anything other than sitting on the sidelines waiting. I.e., you're knocked out of the 'game' (either that or drawn your cash resources after waiting 270 days with lawyer and court fees).

Fern

 

[Balt]

Should pretty much end the "Obama personally ordered it!!!!" nonsense, I would hope.

Probably not, though.

 

[werepossum]

Should pretty much end the "Obama personally ordered it!!!!" nonsense, I would hope.

Probably not, though.

One can't prove a negative, so I'm assuming that the "Obama personally ordered it!!!!" accusations will slowly die out as no such evidence develops. Unless he's dumber than I think or chooses to lock everything down a la "Fast and Furious."

 

[Jhhnn]

No. That's what's been reported in the media. Now, they may have gotten it from Issa, but I don't think so since these numbers were being throw around before the House investigation began.

So your "best information" is just rumors, correct? Why didn't you say so?

Issa's believability isn't an issue, or shouldn't be (although I can see you're very hung up on him).

Fern

Surely you jest. Issa panders to a certain headset, manipulates their emotional need to believe quite ruthlessly. He is a consummate con man & charlatan who manipulates the hopes and fears of his target audience. He's the political equivalent of a Faith Healer & a Witch Hunter.

His most significant exposes never amounted to a hill of beans other than in the minds of True Believers who are very, very predisposed to believe anything they want to hear. It's true because they believe it, and that's that. Truthiness!

 

[werepossum]

So your "best information" is just rumors, correct? Why didn't you say so?



Surely you jest. Issa panders to a certain headset, manipulates their emotional need to believe quite ruthlessly. He is a consummate con man & charlatan who manipulates the hopes and fears of his target audience. He's the political equivalent of a Faith Healer & a Witch Hunter.

His most significant exposes never amounted to a hill of beans other than in the minds of True Believers who are very, very predisposed to believe anything they want to hear. It's true because they believe it, and that's that. Truthiness!

Yet another midiot who believes that anyone who deosn't agree with the left 100% of the time is a True Believer. Although I do believe "Truthiness" is your own unique delusion, so don't let anyone tell you you've got nothing going for you Sunshine.