IRS confesses to inappropriately targeting conservative groups.

[Bowfinger]

lol, the scary thing is that you honestly believe your own bullshit.

By the way, I voted for that f'n imbecile, Obama, so you're damn right I'll continue to criticize every mistake he and his admin make. He and his appointed staff have let me down in almost every conceivable way...

Feel free to factually refute anything I said. I won't hold my breath.

I have no issue with criticizing Obama when warranted. I do it all the time. What I take issue with is you crazies who lie about what he's done or not done, who can't tell the difference between wishful thinking and reality. Such partisan noise diverts attention and resources away from real issues of real importance.

No matter how much you wish otherwise, it was the CIA that declared the Benghazi attack was triggered by the video. It wasn't something invented by Obama or Rice. No matter how much you wish otherwise, there is no evidence today that Obama had anything to do with the IRS scandal. But you presume to know more from your La-Z-Boy than the Inspector General who actually investigated this. That is extremely arrogant, and more than a bit delusional. It is you who believes your own bullshit, not me.

 

[Bowfinger]

Then what am I missing here? Is it that they're alleging that the conservative groups were unfairly targeted from a purely political motive, because they were conservative? Is there any proof that it was specifically politically motivated, or is just an assumption the republicans are running with?

There are two claims. First, that this targeting was intentionally political rather than the result of poor judgment. There's no evidence supporting this claim so far, though it doesn't seem a big stretch that government employees who collect taxes might harbor some "concerns" with groups who state they hate government and taxes.

The second claim is that this cannot possibly be the product of a few low level employees, but must have come from above, with many specifically claiming Obama was involved. There is no evidence supporting this claim either. On the contrary, the new Inspector General report states IRS management told employees to stop this practice once they learned of it.

 

[Incorruptible]

The irs needs to be abolished. It is a massive waste of money and only hurts the economy. Get rid of the irs

 

[BD2003]

There are two claims. First, that this targeting was intentionally political rather than the result of poor judgment. There's no evidence supporting this claim so far, though it doesn't seem a big stretch that government employees who collect taxes might harbor some "concerns" with groups who state they hate government and taxes.

The second claim is that this cannot possibly be the product of a few low level employees, but must have come from above, with many specifically claiming Obama was involved. There is no evidence supporting this claim either. On the contrary, the new Inspector General report states IRS management told employees to stop this practice once they learned of it.

Ok, thanks. Basically what I figured.

 

[palehorse]

Ok, thanks. Basically what I figured.

Please take bowfinger's "explanations" with an enormous grain of blindly partisan salt.

Very few have claimed that Obama himself has anything to do with this IRS mess, but there is plenty of evidence to indicate that the targeting of conservative groups was entirely politically motivated.

In fact, the ONLY remaining question is how high up the chain it went within the IRS. It's entirely possible that the practice was driven by low-level employees acting on their own, but it's also possible that the issue was a bit more widespread.

I believe everyone's main goal now is to encourage a more thorough investigation so that we can know for sure, and to also determine who at the IRE should be fired or jailed.

Once again, though, there is VERY little doubt, by anyone, that the targeting was entirely ideologically/politically motivated.

Let me repeat these numbers for you:

100% of the conservative group applications took more than 24 months to process, but 90% of the liberal group applications were approved in less than 12 months.

Those are known and undeniable facts.

 

[IGBT]

“We’re not political,’’ said one determinations staffer in khakis as he left work late Tuesday afternoon. “We people on the local level are doing what we are supposed to do. . . . That’s why there are so many people here who are flustered. Everything comes from the top. We don’t have any authority to make those decisions without someone signing off on them. There has to be a directive.”


http://washingtonexaminer.com/anony...verything-comes-from-the-top./article/2530001

 

[BD2003]

Please take bowfinger's "explanations" with an enormous grain of blindly partisan salt.

Very few have claimed that Obama himself has anything to do with this IRS mess, but there is plenty of evidence to indicate that the targeting of conservative groups was entirely politically motivated.

In fact, the ONLY remaining question is how high up the chain it went within the IRS. It's entirely possible that the practice was driven by low-level employees acting on their own, but it's also possible that the issue was a bit more widespread.

I believe everyone's main goal now is to encourage a more thorough investigation so that we can know for sure, and to also determine who at the IRE should be fired or jailed.

Once again, though, there is VERY little doubt, by anyone, that the targeting was entirely ideologically/politically motivated.

Let me repeat these numbers for you:

100% of the conservative group applications took more than 24 months to process, but 90% of the liberal group applications were approved in less than 12 months.

Those are known and undeniable facts.

That certainly sounds fishy. Id be curious to know what the stats were when bush was in office though, whether this is actually a new tactic, or whether its politics as usual.

 

[BlueWolf47]

The irs needs to be abolished. It is a massive waste of money and only hurts the economy. Get rid of the irs

So who do you propose to take on all of the irs's responsibilities and duties in tax collection? The post office?

 

[Socio]

Does trail does lead straight to Obama?

This smoking gun seems to point in that direction;

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/05/20/obama-and-the-irs-the-smoking/print

Is President Obama directly implicated in the IRS scandal?
Is the White House Visitors Log the trail to the smoking gun?
The stunning questions are raised by the following set of new facts.
March 31, 2010.
According to the White House Visitors Log, provided here in searchable form by U.S. News and World Report, the president of the anti-Tea Party National Treasury Employees Union, Colleen Kelley, visited the White House at 12:30pm that Wednesday noon time of March 31st.
The White House lists the IRS union leader’s visit this way:

Kelley, Colleen Potus 03/31/2010 12:30
​

In White House language, “POTUS” stands for “President of the United States.”
The very next day after her White House meeting with the President, according to the Treasury Department’s Inspector General’s Report, IRS employees — the same employees who belong to the NTEU — set to work in earnest targeting the Tea Party and conservative groups around America. The IG report wrote it up this way:

April 1-2, 2010: The new Acting Manager, Technical Unit, suggested the need for a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases. The Determinations Unit Program Manager Agreed.
​

In short: the very day after the president of the quite publicly anti-Tea Party labor union — the union for IRS employees — met with President Obama, the manager of the IRS “Determinations Unit Program agreed” to open a “Sensitive Case report on the Tea party cases.” As stated by the IG report.

This would indicate Obama met with the head of the IRS's labor union the day before it started targeting the Tea Party.

Just a coincidence? Perhaps, but highly unlikely.

 

[Bowfinger]

That certainly sounds fishy. Id be curious to know what the stats were when bush was in office though, whether this is actually a new tactic, or whether its politics as usual.

There were some issues reported during Bush's tenure, but I'm not aware of anything as broad as this.

Also, Palehorse's indignant sobbing not withstanding, there is still no evidence this was done with partisan intent. There is no question that IRS reviews produced partisan results. I think almost everyone agrees with that, including the IRS itself. That is not evidence of intent, however.

(Palehorse considers "evidence" a dirty word, and doesn't understand his wishful thinking is not the same as fact.)

Once Karl Rove got his purely political attack group accepted as a 501 (c)(4) "social welfare" (sic) non-profit, it opened the floodgates for hundreds of other political groups to apply for the same tax exempt status. The great majority of these groups were right-wing groups generally, with "Tea Party" groups heavily represented. The IRS contention is that it was struggling with this influx and trying to determine how to decide if a group's activities were primarily political or not. By law, a group whose activities are primarily political are NOT eligible for 501 (c)(4) status, yet the IRS had a huge pile of applications from groups that were clearly political, e.g., Tea Party groups. What to do?

Or so the story goes. What's the truth? Was there political intent or merely biased results? Contrary to Palehorse's snarling, the honest answer is we don't yet know. The results are suspicious, no doubt about it, but the evidence of intent is still lacking.

My personal belief is that none of these groups should have been approved, left or right. Political groups should not be tax exempt, and they should never provide anonymous cover for their financiers. Money has corrupted our political system, perhaps irreparably. While money may technically be "free speech", I've always felt the American public has the right -- at a minimum -- to at least know who owns our leaders.

 

[PokerGuy]

While money may technically be "free speech", I've always felt the American public has the right -- at a minimum -- to at least know who owns our leaders.

That sounds good, but in practice, people who support unpopular causes (especially non PC ones) are attacked and vilified. Anonymity is (and always has been) critical to political freedom.

Was there political intent or merely biased results?

I notice you're still only talking about the screening part of the process rather than the entire picture. If one suspends disbelief and accepts that the screening process that led to abuse of conservative groups was just a "foolish mistake" or bad "shortcut", how does that explain subsequent abuse of only conservative applicants? How does that explain no tea party applications granted in 27 months when everyone else averaged 12 months? All just happy little coincidences.

A lot of people on the left are defending what the IRS was doing because the target was the political right. They just don't understand the severity of the danger when government agencies like the IRS and justice department become political attack dogs rather than a-political bureaucracies. That's what it looks like right now.

 

[HomerJS]

There were some issues reported during Bush's tenure, but I'm not aware of anything as broad as this.

Also, Palehorse's indignant sobbing not withstanding, there is still no evidence this was done with partisan intent. There is no question that IRS reviews produced partisan results. I think almost everyone agrees with that, including the IRS itself. That is not evidence of intent, however.

(Palehorse considers "evidence" a dirty word, and doesn't understand his wishful thinking is not the same as fact.)

Once Karl Rove got his purely political attack group accepted as a 501 (c)(4) "social welfare" (sic) non-profit, it opened the floodgates for hundreds of other political groups to apply for the same tax exempt status. The great majority of these groups were right-wing groups generally, with "Tea Party" groups heavily represented. The IRS contention is that it was struggling with this influx and trying to determine how to decide if a group's activities were primarily political or not. By law, a group whose activities are primarily political are NOT eligible for 501 (c)(4) status, yet the IRS had a huge pile of applications from groups that were clearly political, e.g., Tea Party groups. What to do?

Or so the story goes. What's the truth? Was there political intent or merely biased results? Contrary to Palehorse's snarling, the honest answer is we don't yet know. The results are suspicious, no doubt about it, but the evidence of intent is still lacking.

My personal belief is that none of these groups should have been approved, left or right. Political groups should not be tax exempt, and they should never provide anonymous cover for their financiers. Money has corrupted our political system, perhaps irreparably. While money may technically be "free speech", I've always felt the American public has the right -- at a minimum -- to at least know who owns our leaders.

Evidence schmevidence. Since when did the right need facts to feign outrage.

 

[Bowfinger]

Does trail does lead straight to Obama?

This smoking gun seems to point in that direction;

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/05/20/obama-and-the-irs-the-smoking/print



This would indicate Obama met with the head of the IRS's labor union the day before it started targeting the Tea Party.

Just a coincidence? Perhaps, but highly unlikely.

It will be interesting to see if this has legs, but I see two potential issues with the claim. First, perhaps it's different in federal government, but managers are usually not union members, and certainly not union presidents. Second, and more damning to the story, according to the same IG report, the first IRS "Tea Party" targeting began a month before this meeting, around March 1, when:

The Determinations Unit Group Manager asked aspecialist to search for other Tea Party or similar organizations’ applications in order to determine thescope of the issue. The specialist continued to completesearches for additional cases until the precursor to theBOLO listing was issued in May 2010.

There is another entry for March 16-17, when "Ten Tea Party cases were identified". At a minimum, this article is being deceptive, cherry picking one entry with a convenient date from the middle of a list of similar entries to insinuate a connection between the White House visit and the IRS activities.

 

[PokerGuy]

Evidence schmevidence. Since when did the right need facts to feign outrage.

Here's what we have right now:

Fact: the IRS targeted conservative groups and other undesirables for additional scrutiny.

Fact: the IRS subsequently subjected conservative group applicants to abuse with absurd demands and requests for information, even including demanding agreements to not picket specific locations etc

Fact: multiple IRS offices have been shown to have engaged in this behavior.

Those facts are not even in dispute. Now we're just seeing heavy spin and political damage control, but those are the facts.

 

[Bowfinger]

Here's what we have right now:

Fact: the IRS targeted conservative groups and other undesirables for additional scrutiny.

Fact: the IRS subsequently subjected conservative group applicants to abuse with absurd demands and requests for information, even including demanding agreements to not picket specific locations etc

Fact: multiple IRS offices have been shown to have engaged in this behavior.

Those facts are not even in dispute. Now we're just seeing heavy spin and political damage control, but those are the facts.

Two issues with your "facts". There were also left-wing groups subjected to intrusive questioning. There were certainly more right-wing groups affected, but there were also more right-wing groups submitting applications.

Also, there is dispute that multiple IRS office engaged in this behavior. All of these 501 (c) applications were processed in Cincinnati. We apparently have one anecdotal report from one group affected that it received letters from two California offices. Without much more detail, we cannot determine what role those offices played, if any. The letters may have been unrelated, or the Cincinnati office may have forwarded a request via the California offices to provide a local point for interaction. For now the claim of multiple offices is speculative.

 

[Bowfinger]

That sounds good, but in practice, people who support unpopular causes (especially non PC ones) are attacked and vilified. Anonymity is (and always has been) critical to political freedom.



I notice you're still only talking about the screening part of the process rather than the entire picture. If one suspends disbelief and accepts that the screening process that led to abuse of conservative groups was just a "foolish mistake" or bad "shortcut", how does that explain subsequent abuse of only conservative applicants? How does that explain no tea party applications granted in 27 months when everyone else averaged 12 months? All just happy little coincidences.

A lot of people on the left are defending what the IRS was doing because the target was the political right. They just don't understand the severity of the danger when government agencies like the IRS and justice department become political attack dogs rather than a-political bureaucracies. That's what it looks like right now.

I don't have enough information to answer the question about extended processing delays. I can only agree yet again that it looks suspicious and needs complete investigation.

I disagree that there are any significant number of people on the left defending the IRS in this. As I said, I think almost everyone on both sides agrees that this was completely unacceptable. The question, however, is whether this unacceptable result was the result of willful intent or merely poor judgement. Either way, it was wrong.

 

[Incorruptible]

obama is a real piece of shit for this. sara ingram hall who was in charge of the irs will now be enforcing obamacare for irs.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...former-head-of-irs-office-targeting-tea-party

 

[xBiffx]

"The law is irrelevant." - Dan Pfeiffer, White House Senior Adviser.

 

[Bowfinger]

"The law is irrelevant." - Dan Pfeiffer, White House Senior Adviser.

At least Monovillage was honest enough to give the whole quote:

"The law is irrelevant. The activity was outrageous and inexcusable."
​

It is not at all surprising you are not so honest. The point, for those equally dimwitted, is that whether this was technically illegal or not, it was wrong and will not be allowed.

 

[xBiffx]

At least Monovillage was honest enough to give the whole quote:

"The law is irrelevant. The activity was outrageous and inexcusable."
​

It is not at all surprising you are not so honest. The point, for those equally dimwitted, is that whether this was technically illegal or not, it was wrong and will not be allowed.

No point including the rest of the quote. It doesn't change the fact that the guy truly believes that the illegality of what happened is a far distant second to anything else. He really believes that calling it outrageous and inexcusable is enough. Calling it illegal doesn't matter nearly as much in his mind. Slap on the hand seems to be the fitting punishment according to him.

"What I mean is, whether it’s legal or illegal is not important to the fact that the conduct doesn’t matter." - Same idiot adviser.

 

[Bowfinger]

No point including the rest of the quote. It doesn't change the fact that the guy truly believes that the illegality of what happened is a far distant second to anything else. He really believes that calling it outrageous and inexcusable is enough. Calling it illegal doesn't matter nearly as much in his mind. Slap on the hand seems to be the fitting punishment according to him.

"What I mean is, whether it’s legal or illegal is not important to the fact that the conduct doesn’t matter." - Same idiot adviser.

You're lying again.

 

[ivwshane]

No point including the rest of the quote. It doesn't change the fact that the guy truly believes that the illegality of what happened is a far distant second to anything else. He really believes that calling it outrageous and inexcusable is enough. Calling it illegal doesn't matter nearly as much in his mind. Slap on the hand seems to be the fitting punishment according to him.

"What I mean is, whether it’s legal or illegal is not important to the fact that the conduct doesn’t matter." - Same idiot adviser.

That's not what he meant by that at all. You are being, unsurprisingly, dishonest.

 

[xBiffx]

You're lying again.

Just quoting the guy. He is the one that thinks the law doesn't matter which is starting to sound a lot like it doesn't apply. Why else would he make such an idiotic blanket statement about the illegality of this. Its obvious he thinks a slap on the hand is far better than jail time in this case otherwise he wouldn't be trying to downplay the criminality of this issue.

 

[xBiffx]

That's not what he meant by that at all. You are being, unsurprisingly, dishonest.

You know what he meant? I don't. I'm just guessing. Just using his repeat statements about the law not being relevant. His idea that calling this bad is enough. No point in talking about the criminality of the problem. Its bad, really bad and we can leave it at that. The IRS was bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad. Now move on......

 

[Bowfinger]

Just quoting the guy. He is the one that thinks the law doesn't matter which is starting to sound a lot like it doesn't apply. Why else would he make such an idiotic blanket statement about the illegality of this. Its obvious he thinks a slap on the hand is far better than jail time in this case otherwise he wouldn't be trying to downplay the criminality of this issue.

You're still lying. Go with your strengths, I guess.