IRS confesses to inappropriately targeting conservative groups.

[xBiffx]

You might want to follow along. I believe this is the same testimony that acting IRS head Miller (?) was just fired for, because he falsely denied knowledge of this in front of Congress.

Actually, no its not the same testimony. This just happened today. You might want to follow along.

 

[Fern]

You may be onto something here, but we need to understand the difference between a (C)(3) and a (C)(4). Are you saying the applications and screening process for the two are substantially different? If so, please give us more information. Again, I'm basing this on the CNN report which suggests the applications are processed similarly by the same IRS staff.

(C)(3) orgs must complete Form 1023: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1023.pdf

(C)(4) orgs must complete Form 1024: http://501cfreebook.com/501_c__4__Tipsheet.html

I.e., It's immediately evident which are which.

Given that there are about 30 different types of non-profits, all of which require different standards to qualify, I'm highly doubtful every staff is trained and works on any and all of them. No org processing such legal paperwork operates that way.

In fact, the IRS has long been organized along 'industrial classification' (I can't remember if that's the exact term). I.e., some would work on hospital apps, some on churches etc. But TBH, I don't have any exact info on the Exempt Orgs Division. But with 60,000 to 70,000 of apps coming in annually I can't imagine they are organized that differently than the rest of the IRS.

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Source? Not a one? I suspect you're misinterpreting what you've read or heard, but I could well be wrong. I've not heard that assertion, however, only that right-wing groups were disproportionately targeted.

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.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-progressive-groups/2158831/

Fern

 

[Oldgamer]

I watched them today live querying Miller, and it ended up being a partisan attack, and not a real investigation. They didn't even let Miller finish a sentence hardly. Every time they would ask a question they would cut him off when he would try to answer them. They wanted to pigeon hole him into a "black and white", yes, or no answer, to suit their partisan attack. It was really annoying because I really wanted to hear his answer. No one is going to learn the truth if the Republicans keep this shit up. All the did today was carry on with speeches today and it was ridiculous. No one was there to really get at the truth. From what little I could understand Miller to say, is that the IRS lower levels were not targeting individual groups out of any political ideology, but only out of expediency, and efficiency.. because their were so many political groups filing for the 501C4's that that the IRS had so many they were having a hard time keeping up. They made a mistake he admitted that much.

 

[CPA]

I watched them today live querying Miller, and it ended up being a partisan attack, and not a real investigation. They didn't even let Miller finish a sentence hardly. Every time they would ask a question they would cut him off when he would try to answer them. They wanted to pigeon hole him into a "black and white", yes, or no answer, to suit their partisan attack. It was really annoying because I really wanted to hear his answer. No one is going to learn the truth if the Republicans keep this shit up. All the did today was carry on with speeches today and it was ridiculous. No one was there to really get at the truth.

Bologna, it was not. Almost all of the senetors condemned what was going on. Ryan and the Rep from Ohio brought up specific issues which Miller couldn't answer (Ryan for the inconsistent testimony and the Ohio rep for specific Tea Party targets in Ohio). Even Charlie Rangel was not happy. It was FAAAAAAAR from a partisan attack.

Miller's ONLY specific response was when he threw out that 70 of the 300 targets of further inquiry were Tea Party organizations. Everything else was "I admit we had horrible customer service." His testimony was laughable.

 

[Bowfinger]

Actually, no its not the same testimony. This just happened today. You might want to follow along.

/facepalm

So it's your position that this:

The Treasury Department’s inspector general told senior Treasury officials in June 2012 he was investigating the Internal Revenue Service’s screening of politically active organizations seeking tax exemptions, disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

happened yesterday? Really? That explains a lot.

I know you're not too swift, so let me step through this slowly. Nobody claimed the Obama administration wasn't aware of the allegations. The point is that when Miller testified about this issue before Congress (July, 2012, IIRC), he denied any knowledge of those allegations having a basis in fact. That was recently determined to be a lie, and he was fired. So yes, the WH knew of the claims, but they also had sworn testimony denying those claims. It was only a few days ago they learned there was more to the story, so far as we know.

 

[xBiffx]

/facepalm

So it's your position that this:

happened yesterday? Really? That explains a lot.

I know you're not too swift, so let me step through this slowly. Nobody claimed the Obama administration wasn't aware of the allegations. The point is that when Miller testified about this issue before Congress (July, 2012, IIRC), he denied any knowledge of those allegations having a basis in fact. That was recently determined to be a lie, and he was fired. So yes, the WH knew of the claims, but they also had sworn testimony denying those claims. It was only a few days ago they learned there was more to the story, so far as we know.

You're not too bright. It was brought up on Friday (today) what happened/was known in June 2012.

 

[Bowfinger]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-progressive-groups/2158831/

Fern

Thanks, I hadn't seen that. It doesn't exactly support your claim, but I agree that is highly suspicious. I'm short on time right now, but did note the following from that link:

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.

So it wasn't 100% one-sided, but it does seem like the Tea Party specifically was singled out for the most delays.


Also, thanks for the (C)(3) and (C)(4) info. Again, I'll have to look more later. Your second link isn't to the actual (C)(4) form, FYI, nor did I see a link to the form. I'm sure I can track it down.

 

[Fern]

Here's a link to Form 1024: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1024.pdf

Fern

 

[Balt]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/us/politics/irs-scandal-congressional-hearings.html?hp&_r=3&



So much for the Obama administration not knowing. Testimony says otherwise.

Interesting. Not sure it really matters, though. The best thing the White House could do is stay out of the IG's way until the investigation was completed. Inserting itself into the process would inevitably lead to accusations of tampering.

 

[michal1980]

when is an independent prosecutor going to be assigned to this case?

anyone trust Eric 'I don't know anything' Holder to be fair?

 

[Vic Vega]

when is an independent prosecutor going to be assigned to this case?

anyone trust Eric 'I don't know anything' Holder to be fair?

No fucking way. I want an independent prosecutor and I want people going to jail.

I don't care specifically that conservative groups were singled out. It's that there was singling out and the Executive knew about it.

 

[monovillage]

The administration and indirectly Obama knew about this in June, 2012.

The inspector general gave Republicans some fodder Friday when he divulged that he informed the Treasury’s general counsel he was auditing the I.R.S.’s screening of politically active groups seeking tax exemptions on June 4, 2012. He told Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin “shortly after,” he said. That meant Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/us/politics/irs-scandal-congressional-hearings.html?hp&_r=3&

We need a special prosecutor and we need one now.

 

[Balt]

The administration and indirectly Obama knew about this in June, 2012.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/us/politics/irs-scandal-congressional-hearings.html?hp&_r=3&

We need a special prosecutor and we need one now.

You're reaching.

First, Obama indirectly knew? Does that mean he knew or he didn't? I've seen no evidence prevented so far that he did.

Second, from the NY Times article: "Treasury officials stressed they did not know the results until March 2013, when the inspector presented a draft. "

Apparently the investigation was still ongoing during the 2012 campaign. If Obama knew, and there's no evidence he did, what do you expect him to do? Hold a press conference in the middle of the investigation and make the IG's job that much harder?

The desire of Republicans to somehow tie this to Obama personally will just turn the entire matter into a political circus rather than get at the actual problem.

That said, I'm all for an independent investigation that is outside of the president's immediate authority. I think his desire to keep it in-house is going to hurt him a lot more than he realizes.

 

[michal1980]

You're reaching.

First, Obama indirectly knew? Does that mean he knew or he didn't? I've seen no evidence prevented so far that he did.

Second, from the NY Times article: "Treasury officials stressed they did not know the results until March 2013, when the inspector presented a draft. "

Apparently the investigation was still ongoing during the 2012 campaign. If Obama knew, and there's no evidence he did, what do you expect him to do? Hold a press conference in the middle of the investigation and make the IG's job that much harder?

The desire of Republicans to somehow tie this to Obama personally will just turn the entire matter into a political circus rather than get at the actual problem.

That said, I'm all for an independent investigation that is completely outside of the president's authority. I think his desire to keep it in-house is going to hurt him a lot more than he realizes.

we get it lefties.

Obama doesn't know shit.

well he might know his golf handicap. Past that. nothing.

 

[Balt]

we get it lefties.

Obama doesn't know shit.

well he might know his golf handicap. Past that. nothing.

Yawn. Contrary to popular belief, every single thing that is being investigated in the government isn't brought to the attention of the president.

Present the evidence if you have it.

 

[michal1980]

Yawn. Contrary to popular belief, every single thing that is being investigated in the government isn't brought to the attention of the president.

Present the evidence if you have it.

prove he didn't know.

it was already shown that the white house was informed. But as we are learning these past few weeks. Obama knows very little about what anyone working for him is doing.

Ignorance is the defense of the week.

 

[Balt]

prove he didn't know.

it was already shown that the white house was informed. But as we are learning these past few weeks. Obama knows very little about what anyone working for him is doing.

Ignorance is the defense of the week.

Prove he didn't know? Hilarious.

No one could even prove you didn't know. You also can't prove there aren't invisible aliens in your room watching you right now.

Guilty until proven innocent, I guess? In other words, you have nothing (except your outrage, of course).

 

[TallBill]

Prove he didn't know? Hilarious.

No one could even prove you didn't know. You also can't prove there aren't invisible aliens in your room watching you right now.

Guilty until proven innocent, I guess? In other words, you have nothing (except your outrage, of course).

If it happens under your authority and your watch, you're partly responsible. Military commanders face this constantly.

 

[Balt]

If it happens under your authority and your watch, you're partly responsible. Military commanders face this constantly.

As a military man, I'm sure you're also familiar with the concept of delegated authority. You don't waste your time try to court martial a general every time a private fucks up.

 

[sunzt]

As a military man, I'm sure you're also familiar with the concept of delegated authority. You don't waste your time try to court martial a general every time a private fucks up.

The secretary of defense must resign! He knew sexual assaults were happening under his watch! Everyone else is just taking the fall for him!! RAAAWWRRRR

 

[palehorse]

dp

 

[palehorse]

.
No, we cannot draw the conclusion this was politically targeted. It is also quite possible this was the result of an ill-considered shortcut.

Jesus... you're truly delusional!

 

[monovillage]

You're reaching.

First, Obama indirectly knew? Does that mean he knew or he didn't? I've seen no evidence prevented so far that he did.

Second, from the NY Times article: "Treasury officials stressed they did not know the results until March 2013, when the inspector presented a draft. "

Apparently the investigation was still ongoing during the 2012 campaign. If Obama knew, and there's no evidence he did, what do you expect him to do? Hold a press conference in the middle of the investigation and make the IG's job that much harder?

The desire of Republicans to somehow tie this to Obama personally will just turn the entire matter into a political circus rather than get at the actual problem.

That said, I'm all for an independent investigation that is outside of the president's immediate authority. I think his desire to keep it in-house is going to hurt him a lot more than he realizes.

They lied to Congress to delay inquiries till after the election and you want to pretend that Obama didn't know anything about it? Is this the new version of plausible deniability?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability

Plausible deniability is a term coined by the CIA during the Kennedy administration to describe the withholding of information from senior officials in order to protect them from repercussions in the event that illegal or unpopular activities by the CIA became public knowledge.

 

[boomerang]

we get it lefties.

Obama doesn't know shit.

well he might know his golf handicap. Past that. nothing.

This sums it up.