IRS Scandal explodes. "no evidence that would support a criminal prosecution."

[ivwshane]

Dude, it isn't my opinion that politicsusa is a left leaning site, it's the subtitle of their site: Real liberal politics. The site's existence is to push liberal policies, period, and they make no bones about it. It isn't a lean, it's a purpose.

As far as the report, did YOU read it? Group names like "Occupy" were added two years after the conservative group names. Conservative groups were asked three times the questions. Conservative groups were subject to delays several times longer than liberal groups. ONLY conservative groups' donor lists were leaked. And the Senate report chastises the TIGTA report for failing to say there was no political bias involved? Not buying the idea that this was somehow accidental. Not surprised that McCain buys it - until he ran for President he didn't reach across the aisle, he lived there between elections. Only in abortion has he ever been a strong conservative outside of when he is up for election, and then only when he faces a strong challenger. Note that no other Republicans signed on. This is merely the Democrat version of Issa.

Awesome! You are either really bad at reading comprehension or a complete dishonest prick!

First off, I said I can understand why you think politicsusa is a liberal site, meaning I agree with your assessment.

As far as the rest of your bullshit post I'll quote the fucking report you failed at reading, to make it real clear to you how completely wrong you are.

Using documents and interviews, the Subcommittee has conducted an extensive examination of the actions taken by the IRS to review and resolve 501(c)(4) applications filed by groups engaged in political campaign activities. The IRS flagged the first Tea Party application in February 2010. For the next three years, the IRS used a series of screening criteria to identify similar applications from both conservative and liberal groups, subjected those applications to individualized reviews, and determined whether the groups should be granted tax exempt status despite their involvement with campaign activities.
During the first half of that three-year period, the screening criteria used to select applications for heightened review used key phrases taken from the names of some of those organizations or from materials indicating their political views, rather than direct indicators of the groups’ involvement with campaign activities. From February 2010 to May 2011, the cases selected for heightened review were referred to as “Tea Party” cases; beginning in June 2011, at the direction of IRS officials in Washington, the name of the category of cases was changed to “advocacy” cases. During both phases, the IRS subjected not only conservative groups with “Tea Party,” “9/12,” or “Patriot” in their names to heightened scrutiny, but also liberal groups with “Progressive,” “Progress,” “ACORN,” “Emerge,” or “Occupy” in their names. The evidence also shows that, from 2010 to mid-2013, more conservative groups than liberal groups applied for tax exempt status, underwent IRS scrutiny, and ultimately won tax exempt status.

Do I need to spell it out to you or do you want to show everyone just how big of a piece a shit you are?

 

[werepossum]

You can't show that Lerner even knew Camp's letter existed, werepossum. In that context, the letter's content is immaterial.

It's just another necessary leap of faith to help the chumps believe in conspiracy.

That's true. It's entirely possible that Lerner was never apprised of an Oversight Committee Chairman's inquiry into the exact practices she was directing. Somehow . . .

Awesome! You are either really bad at reading comprehension or a complete dishonest prick!

First off, I said I can understand why you think politicsusa is a liberal site, meaning I agree with your assessment.

As far as the rest of your bullshit post I'll quote the fucking report you failed at reading, to make it real clear to you how completely wrong you are.

Do I need to spell it out to you or do you want to show everyone just how big of a piece a shit you are?

lol Maybe you need to spell it out for me. The Democrats (and McCain) say it was even; the IRS' internal emails and the Republicans (less McCain) say it was not. Clearly you are correct and Lerner apologized simply because of a microstroke.

Look, I understand your point. You hate conservatives with a burning passion and feel the IRS should be making things difficult for them.

 

[ivwshane]

That's true. It's entirely possible that Lerner was never apprised of an Oversight Committee Chairman's inquiry into the exact practices she was directing. Somehow . . .


lol Maybe you need to spell it out for me. The Democrats (and McCain) say it was even; the IRS' internal emails and the Republicans (less McCain) say it was not. Clearly you are correct and Lerner apologized simply because of a microstroke.

Look, I understand your point. You hate conservatives with a burning passion and feel the IRS should be making things difficult for them.

Looks like you went for the piece of shit option! Enjoy your bubble.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's true. It's entirely possible that Lerner was never apprised of an Oversight Committee Chairman's inquiry into the exact practices she was directing. Somehow

10 days is not never. Even that is immaterial. The burden of proof is on the accuser. Well, except when comes to Iraqi WMD's & Repub scandal mongering.

Or are you going to give me the "prove she didn't know" runaround? Or just hint at it enough for the chumps to leap?

The simple fact that there is no evidence that she knew makes the rest of the whole line of inquiry wrt the hard drive immaterial as well, conjecture based on conjecture.

You already knew that, of course. You've circled back around to that same hard drive crash song and dance yet again as if it were some other way.

The only way it matters is if you can prove she knew about the letter.

Have at it.

 

[werepossum]

10 days is not never. Even that is immaterial. The burden of proof is on the accuser. Well, except when comes to Iraqi WMD's & Repub scandal mongering.

Or are you going to give me the "prove she didn't know" runaround? Or just hint at it enough for the chumps to leap?

The simple fact that there is no evidence that she knew makes the rest of the whole line of inquiry wrt the hard drive immaterial as well, conjecture based on conjecture.

You already knew that, of course. You've circled back around to that same hard drive crash song and dance yet again as if it were some other way.

The only way it matters is if you can prove she knew about the letter.

Have at it.

By your "logic", destroying her hard drive was a smart thing to do. No evidence, no problem. I'll just point out that the IRS would never accept that.

Taxpayer: I had all my receipts digitized, but lost them when my hard drive crashed.
IRS: Here's your revised tax bill, with penalties and interest.

 

[Jhhnn]

By your "logic", destroying her hard drive was a smart thing to do. No evidence, no problem. I'll just point out that the IRS would never accept that.

Taxpayer: I had all my receipts digitized, but lost them when my hard drive crashed.
IRS: Here's your revised tax bill, with penalties and interest.

What a truly lame dodge. You cannot prove that Lerner knew of Camp's letter, nor can you prove she knew that her hard drive was the only repository for her email. You also assume she had something to hide in that email. You are, therefore, representing convenient speculation as fact.

It doesn't matter what the IRS would accept from a taxpayer. That's a red herring reinforcing what I've offered- that this is now just a fishing expedition aimed at discrediting the IRS in ways unrelated to the original issue.

 

[Bowfinger]

Step one: Turn on laptop.
Step two: Begin a copy operation.
Step three: Shake laptop vigorously.
Step four: Go over laptop with a powerful magnet. (This step was inadvertently discovered by quilters and sewers who discovered that that dandy new magnetic scissors holder mounted on the sewing machine) wiped out the machine's memory.)

The result is a physically damaged platter which has been wiped clean.

Of course, this would not be a problem in and of itself except that the IRS blatantly ignores the law on document retention.

Nope, highly unlikely. You won't accept anything I say, of course. so I hoped one of P&N's resident disk "experts" would have corrected you. Remember how they went on and on about how it was virtually impossible to crash a drive so badly it was totally unrecoverable? They are now strangely silent.

Your approach can certainly cause disk errors, but that's it. With drive protection technology, merely shaking a laptop is unlikely to cause a head crash, especially a catastrophic one. It is also harder than one would think to erase a drive with just a magnet. Actually erasing the whole drive, such that none of it is readable, requires a suitable degaussing tool. I wouldn't expect you to know that, but that's the point. If a nominal tech guy like you didn't know this, it's nonsensical to expect Lerner to know it.

Your plot will not render the drive so inoperable that it cannot be accessed with special recovery equipment. That's the part you missed, that Lerner's drive had a "critical electronic or mechanical problem" so severe it could not be forced into a Ready state, even for their diagnostic and recovery equipment. Couple this with all the other holes in your conspiracy theory (which you are ignoring), and it's clear to any rational person you are spouting purely self-serving nonsense.

Finally, I'll note you've ignored all but one of the points I raised. You can't refute them and lack the integrity to concede them, so you just pretend they don't exist. This is typical of you. I know others have called you on this as well. "It's only a flesh wound!"

 

[PokerGuy]

Now that some of the emails from Lerner and her fellow scum have started to get released (this weekend) it's hilarious to see how they went into full damage control mode before things really hit the fan. The obviously knew they were up to no good and they knew things were gonna get exposed, so they were looking for any way to mitigate the damage. Instead of figuring out how to not have this kind of stuff happen, they were obviously focused on minimizing PR damage. Typical.

 

[Bowfinger]

Now that some of the emails from Lerner and her fellow scum have started to get released (this weekend) it's hilarious to see how they went into full damage control mode before things really hit the fan. The obviously knew they were up to no good and they knew things were gonna get exposed, so they were looking for any way to mitigate the damage. Instead of figuring out how to not have this kind of stuff happen, they were obviously focused on minimizing PR damage. Typical.

Examples?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...ion-secret-research-project-top-irs-official/

New IRS Documents Show Lerner Did Not Need Conservative Group Donor Lists – Emails Mention “Secret Research Project” by Top IRS Official

SEPTEMBER 04, 2014

Documents also reveal that 75% of targeted non-profit groups were conservative, just 5% were liberal

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released a new batch of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) email documents revealing that under former IRS official Lois Lerner, the agency seems to acknowledge having needlessly solicited donor lists from non-profit political groups. According to a May 21, 2012, memo from the IRS Deputy Associate Chief Counsel: “such information was not needed across-the-board and not used in making the agency’s determination on exempt status.” Later, in her May 10, 2013, remarks in which Lerner first revealed in response to question she planted about the IRS targeting of conservative groups, she conceded that the requests for donor names was “not appropriate, not usual.” The new documents obtained by Judicial Watch also reveal that 75% of the groups from whom the lists were solicited were apparently conservative, with only 5% being liberal.

The documents came in response to an October 2013 Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:13-cv-01559)) filed against the IRS after the agency refused to respond to four FOIA requests dating back to May, 2013. The emails are contained in the sixth batch of documents the IRS has been forced to produce in response to the Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit.

Contained in the newly released IRS documents is an email from Deputy Associate Chief Counsel Margo L. Stevens that was sent in response to a question from Lerner concerning attempts to return donor lists the IRS had controversially obtained. In Stevens’ May 21, 2012, email to Lerner, she wrote:

Lois, I wanted to get back with you with respect to your question whether TEGE [Tax Exempt & Government Entities] could return to those organizations from whom donor names were solicited in questionnaires following their submission of applications for recognition of their tax exempt status (under 501(c)(4)), now that TEGE has reviewed those files and determined that such information was not needed across-the-board and not used in making the agency’s determination on exempt status.

Key parts of this email and other documents the IRS produced to Judicial Watch have been blacked out. (Many of the documents are completely blacked out (or partially redacted) seemingly because they are allegedly “pre-decisional” or “deliberative,” information that might be exempt from disclosure under FOIA. The Obama administration’s decision to withhold this information is completely discretionary and is not required by law.)

A subsequent IRS email thread on June 27, 2012, revealed that inappropriately obtained donor lists were being used for a “secret research project” and that a top official wanted then-Acting IRS Commissioner Steve Miller to decide how to handle the issue. The email exchange, with the Subject line “donor names,” included the following:

June 27, 2012: 8:59 AM — David L. Fish, IRS acting director of Exempt Organizations Rulings and Agreements, to Holly Paz:
Joseph Urban [IRS Technical Advisor, Tax Exempt and Government Entities] had actually started a secret research project on whether we could, consistent with 6104, argue that [REDACTED] Joe was quite agitated yesterday when I told him what we were doing. (He was involved when the initial question was raised, but we didn’t continue reading him in). At one point he started saying that this was a decision for Steve Miller–I told him we were already doing it, and that I didn’t know whether Lois had already talked to Nikole [former IRS Chief of Staff to IRS Commissioner Steve Miller] about this. Would not be surprised if he already started working on Lois.

June 27, 2012 9:02 AM — Holly Paz to David L. Fish:
Thanks for the heads up. The decision was made by Steve, based on advice from P and A. [Procedure and Administration]

Lerner’s and other IRS officials’ concerns about how to handle these donor lists came on the heels of an advisory from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) to her and other IRS officials in late March 2012 of “an audit we plan to conduct of the IRS’s process for reviewing applications for tax exemption by potential section 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), and 501(c)(6) organizations.” The documents produced do not detail the “secret research project” nor disclose how the IRS used the donor names the agency improperly obtained.

Then-IRS Commissioner Miller initially testified to Congress on May 17, 2013 that “instructions had been given to destroy any donor lists,” but donor lists were actually produced to the House Ways and Means Committee four months later. The House Ways and Means Committee also announced at May 7, 2014 hearing that, after scores of conservative groups provided donor information “to the IRS, nearly one in ten donors were subject to audit.” In 2011, as many as five donors to one conservative (c)(4) organization were audited, according to the Wall Street Journal. And this past June, the IRS admitted wrongdoing in releasing the conservative National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) confidential tax return and donor list, which were published in March 2012 by the Human Rights Campaign. The Human Rights Campaign is the chief political rival to NOM; its outgoing president had been named a national co-chair of the Obama Reelection Campaign. The IRS reportedly agreed to pay NOM $50,000 to settle the lawsuit.

The documents obtained by Judicial Watch also include a July 18, 2012, email to Lerner from Judith Kindell, senior technical adviser to Lois Lerner, showing that 75% of the nearly 200 non-profit 501 (c)(4) political activist groups targeted by the IRS were conservative, and only 5% were liberal:

Of the 199 (c)(4) cases, approximately 3/4 appear to be conservative leaning while fewer than 10 appear to be liberal/progressive leaning groups based solely on the name. The remainder do not obviously lean to either side of the political spectrum.

Shortly after this email exchange, another email chain on June 28 between Lerner and Holly Paz, the former director of the Office of Rulings and Agreements,shows that Lerner believed that the TIGTA and congressional inquiries into the IRS’s practices were “dangerous”:

June 28, 2012 8:57 AM — Paz to Lerner: “Now TIGTA wants to talk to me. I am guessing they read this morning’s paper. [Apparent reference to Wall Street Journal article concerning IRS scrutiny of Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS tax exempt status]Will keep you posted.”
June 28, 2012 9:13 AM — Lerner to Paz: “Not alone. Wait til I am there.”
June 28, 2012 09:17 AM — Paz to Lerner: “Sorry. Too late. He already called me. It was not about WSJ. Just him trying to get better understanding of the scope of the [House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave] Camp [R-MI] request.”
June 28, 2012 8:22 AM — Lerner to Paz: “Just as dangerous. I’ll talk to you soon. Be there in half hour.”
The “dangerous” Camp request to which Paz and Lerner referred was apparently a reference to a letter sent in Mayby Republican Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, David Camp, to IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman requesting copies of all 501(c)(4) applications from 2010 and 2011. Despite the consternation expressed about the “dangerous” Camp applications request, an August 14, 2012, email from Lerner to Paz revealed that as of that date, “…no one from the Hill has shown up to look at them.”

The new documents also include emails further contradicting President Obama’s February 2014 excuse that the IRS targeting was entirely the fault of “bonehead decisions in local offices.” Obama was parroting Lois Lerner’s May 2013 claim that the targeting of conservative groups was the fault of “low-level” employees in Cincinnati for the targeting of conservative groups. In the months leading up to the 2012 presidential election, Lerner and other top IRS officials made it clear that no “advocacy” applications should be approved or denied without express approval from Lerner’s office in Washington, DC:
June 20, 2012: — Email from IRS attorney Michael C. Seton to managers in Exempt Organizations division defining targeted groups’ approval procedures:
Please inform the reviewers and staff in your groups that before issuing any favorable or initial denial rulings on any cases with advocacy issues, the reviewers must notify me and you [Lerner and other senior IRS staffers] via e -mail and get our approval. No favorable or initial denial rulings can be issued without your and my approval. The e-mail notification includes the name of the case, and a synopsis of facts and denial rationale. I may require a short briefing depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case.

June 29, 2012: – Email from Lois Lerner to Nikole Flax apparently criticizing the IRS Exempt Organizations Determinations Unit for taking too long to categorize non-profits as political and directing that top Washington IRS official Holly Paz would settle disputes over who was to be targeted:
Although Quality was on board and involved with the training, we are seeing some tendency for Determs staff to continue to over -develop political activity issue. When asked why, they say they are concerned that if they don’t, Quality will ding them. If can’t reach agreement, it comes to Holly.

June 26, 2012: — Email from Lerner to Holly Paz and Cindy Thomas in which Lerner notes that TIGTA asked for files directly from the Federal Records Center and warns that this makes sense in “context of a really sensitive investigation alleging political bias by the IRS.” The Federal Records Act (FRA) requires the preservation of official e-mails at the National Archives Federal Record Center. This email from Lerner was dated during the same time period during which the IRS claims her emails were lost and her Blackberry was “wiped clean” and “removed as scrap for disposal …” In violation of Section 3106 of the FRA, the IRS failed to notify the Archives that Lerner’s emails were missing.
The IRS also produced an email exchange in which Lerner takes issue with IRS spokesman Dean Patterson, who had revealed March 8, 2012, Roll Call article the existence of a “companion process” for administering applications for tax-exempt status. After Lerner received an advisory from TIGTA asking to discuss the Roll Call article, the following email exchange occurred:

April 2, 2012: 7:00 PM — Lerner to Patterson:
Importance: High. As you can see below [email from TIGTA Audit Manager Thomas Seidell], we are meeting with TIGTA later this week. They have given us a list of topics they want to discuss. I am not familiar with the Roll Call article he sites –can you shoot us a copy please? Thanks

April 3, 2012: 8:59 AM — IRS Public Affairs Specialist Burke Anthony to Lerner :
Lois, per your request, here is the Roll Call article. I put Dean’s quote in bold; it’s about 17 graphs into the story:

“Dean Patterson, a spokesman for the IRS, denied the existence of a special committee but said the IRS has a “companion process that administers the same provisions of the tax law in the context of new applications for tax-exempt status. The legal issues and the information that will inform our discussions will be similar in both contexts.”

April 3, 2012: 9:26 AM — Lerner to Anthony:
Thanks–sorry, but I really have no clue what he means by a companion process that “administers the same provisions of the tax law in the context of new applications for tax -exempt status. The legal issues and the information that will inform our discussions will be similar in both contexts.” As I will need to talk to TIGTA about this on Thursday, perhaps you can give me a better sense of what he is referring to? I could guess, but don’t want to be guessing in this context.

On October 9, 2013, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit against the IRS asking the District Court for the District of Columbia to compel the agency to produce records of all communications relating to the review process for organizations seeking 501(c)(4) non-profit status since January 1, 2010. The lawsuit also asked the court to order the IRS to provide records of communications by former IRS official Lois Lerner concerning the controversial review and approval process. The IRS failed to respond to the four FOIA requests at issues in this lawsuit dating back to May 2013.

The communications sought by Judicial Watch covered portions of the same period for which the IRS on June 13, 2014, notified the Senate Finance Committee that Lerner’s emails had been lost or destroyed but did not notify the Court or Judicial Watch about these missing emails. In response to our request for more information, U.S. District Court Judge Emmett Sullivan held a July 10 hearing and order the IRS to produce sworn declarations about its efforts to find and restore Lerner’s allegedly missing emails.

And then on August 25, Department of Justice attorneys for the IRS conceded to Judicial Watch that Lerner’s “missing emails” (and all government records) had been backed in case of catastrophe but that it would be too “onerous” to search this backup system for Lerner’s emails. The Justice Department has since put out anonymous statements alleging Judicial Watch “misheard” what its lawyers said and that the agency did not disclose “new” information about a back-up system.

It is not in dispute that the existence of any back-up system was withheld from the court despite two orders (order 1, order 2) demanding specifically sworn declarations about where Lerner’s emails may be residing and effort to obtain them. The Obama administration has refused Judicial Watch’s requests to amend the sworn declarations and finally inform Judge Sullivan directly about this back-up system. Administration lawyers have steadfastly refused and subsequently submitted a “status report” to the Court on August 29 that, again, makes no mention of any back-up system.

Judicial Watch lawyers are preparing now to ask the Court for relief in light of the Obama administration’s continuing obstruction and contempt for Judge Sullivan’s orders.

“Again, Judicial Watch has uncovered more shocking emails from the IRS, forced out by a lawsuit and a federal court,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Now we learn the stunning news that Obama’s IRS had a ‘secret research program’ using illicitly-obtained confidential donor lists of conservative and Tea Party organizations that opposed President Obama’s agenda or reelection. With all this IRS abuse, it is no wonder Lois Lerner said that questions by Congress and others were ‘dangerous.’ And it is well past time that President Obama should be held to account about his repeated and recent falsehoods about his IRS scandal. Next up: Judicial Watch will ask Judge Sullivan for help in requiring the Obama IRS to stop its obstruction and disclose the no-longer-missing emails of Lois Lerner and other IRS officials.”

 

[Jhhnn]

^^^

Convoluted conspiracy theory rehash.

You already knew that.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

^^^

Convoluted conspiracy theory rehash.

You already knew that.

As more emails come out...the more we learn about what actually happened. I'm OK with that. Hopefully, you are too.

 

[Jhhnn]

As more emails come out...the more we learn about what actually happened. I'm OK with that. Hopefully, you are too.

We already know what really happened. The IRS admitted to using improper procedure with the brunt of that falling onto teatard 501(c)4 organizations.

 

[trenchfoot]

I guess the biggest problem for the folks that want to pursue this angle of attack on the IRS is the lack of a paper trail leading back to Obama. From the very beginning of this "scandal" Obama's name was held up quite prominently and vociferously pointed to as the prime impetus for why this all happened in the first place.

That seems to have subsided and now the next best thing for the conspiracy folks to go after is Lerner. Logically then, after the "Lerner" conspiracy angle has been wrung dry, someone else's name that's connected to the Obama administration is going to get put up for bid and so on and so on until the next "scandal" the Obama administration perpetrates appears over the horizon.

This Repub "strategerizing" around perpetually keeping Obama in a negative light has its rewards....for both sides it seems. The Repubs can see that this plan is working from the poll numbers on Obama's popularity, and the Dems can see with glee the backfiring going on in the Repub's camp from the use of these types of politically motivated ploys. I call it a wash.

Like most anything though, a one trick pony is either going to get put out to pasture or is going to bite the hand that feeds it and gets pulled over to a hitching post and mercilessly shot for the traitorous act.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I guess the biggest problem for the folks that want to pursue this angle of attack on the IRS is the lack of a paper trail leading back to Obama. From the very beginning of this "scandal" Obama's name was held up quite prominently and vociferously pointed to as the prime impetus for why this all happened in the first place.

That seems to have subsided and now the next best thing for the conspiracy folks to go after is Lerner. Logically then, after the "Lerner" conspiracy angle has been wrung dry, someone else's name that's connected to the Obama administration is going to get put up for bid and so on and so on until the next "scandal" the Obama administration perpetrates appears over the horizon.

This Repub "strategerizing" around perpetually keeping Obama in a negative light has its rewards....for both sides it seems. The Repubs can see that this plan is working from the poll numbers on Obama's popularity, and the Dems can see with glee the backfiring going on in the Repub's camp from the use of these types of politically motivated ploys. I call it a wash.

Like most anything though, a one trick pony is either going to get put out to pasture or is going to bite the hand that feeds it and gets pulled over to a hitching post and mercilessly shot for the traitorous act.

A lot of this could have been put to rest a long time ago had Lerner testified and not pled the 5th. Unfortunately, she and the IRS (apparently) are doing their best to obstruct this investigation. Where's all that transparency we were promised?

 

[Drako]

I still can't believe their are people on here defending the IRS on this. It's insane.

 

[DominionSeraph]

A lot of this could have been put to rest a long time ago had Lerner testified and not pled the 5th. Unfortunately, she and the IRS (apparently) are doing their best to obstruct this investigation. Where's all that transparency we were promised?

So, do you believe his campaign promise for more transparency in government means he's authorized to wiretap Republican officials? If not, why would you think it would cover violating her 5th Amendment rights?

I still can't believe their are people on here defending the IRS on this. It's insane.

No, what's insane is that every conservative in this thread continues to believe that only conservative groups were held to additional scrutiny.

 

[Bowfinger]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...ion-secret-research-project-top-irs-official/

New IRS Documents Show Lerner Did Not Need Conservative Group Donor Lists – Emails Mention “Secret Research Project” by Top IRS Official

SEPTEMBER 04, 2014

Documents also reveal that 75% of targeted non-profit groups were conservative, just 5% were liberal

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released a new batch of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) email documents revealing that under former IRS official Lois Lerner, the agency seems to acknowledge having needlessly solicited donor lists from non-profit political groups. ...

[ clipped for brevity ]

Is there anything in particular in all this that you found noteworthy? The conclusion that donor lists were not required was in the TIGTA report. This earlier email chain shows the IRS reached the same conclusion without him.

Their other headline, that 75% of the groups targeted were conservative sounds bad ... until you consider the relative volumes of incoming application. The new Senate report cites two different figures, calculated in two different ways. One shows conservative group applications accounted for about 2 out of 3 incoming political applications (i.e., 67%). The other showed conservative apps were about 4 out of 5 (i.e., 80%). The 75% targeting number becomes completely unremarkable in that light; it is proportionate to their incoming volume.

Judicial Watch released this "story" over the weekend. I didn't see anything else in it that was particularly noteworthy. I did note that they had over 900 pages of new email. If their headlined tidbits are the worst they could find, it sounds like a lot of nothing. I browsed through the mail briefly and quickly got bored.

Finally, in case you missed my earlier comment, remember that Judicial Watch is a highly partisan actor, much more so than the Foxes and Daily Callers of the right-wing media. As I pointed out to Werepossum:

"Judicial Watch is suing the IRS, and is thus as partisan (and dishonest) as they come. While they are a handy source of original source materials, posted to their archives, their stories are trash. They are purely self-serving press releases, no more credible than OJ announcing he was going after the real killers."
​

Take their spin with a giant block of salt.

 

[xBiffx]

Only a tool claims that the revelation of a secret research project using inappropriately obtained information from mostly conservative groups isn't noteworthy. Only a tool tries to downplay this as some sort of numbers game. Does it really matter if they were all liberal groups? Would this behavior be all of a sudden acceptable?

It's not surprising however, nothing really is anymore with the set of tools we have for this thread.

 

[Bowfinger]

Only a tool claims that the revelation of a secret research project using inappropriately obtained information from mostly conservative groups isn't noteworthy.

Fluff off, Lamb Chop. If you extracted your head into reading position, you might have noticed my very first sentence was, "Is there anything in particular in all this that you found noteworthy?" That is an invitation to call out such issues.

Yes, I agree that is an interesting comment. Without knowing anything substantive about it, all one can do is speculate. You have already undoubtedly concluded it was something sinister. I'll wait to see what comes of it, if anything.

Only a tool tries to downplay this as some sort of numbers game. Does it really matter if they were all liberal groups? Would this behavior be all of a sudden acceptable?

Yes, it is not only acceptable for the IRS to identify political groups violating 501(c)(4) laws, it is desirable. The IRS should be ferreting out such corruption, no matter how many whiny wing-nuts cry against following the law.

It's not surprising however, nothing really is anymore with the set of tools we have for this thread.

Yawn. Get back to us when you have something besides RNC bleating to offer.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Is there anything in particular in all this that you found noteworthy? The conclusion that donor lists were not required was in the TIGTA report. This earlier email chain shows the IRS reached the same conclusion him.

Their other headline, that 75% of the groups targeted were conservative sounds bad ... until you consider the relative volumes of incoming application. The new Senate report cites two different figures, calculated in two different ways. One shows conservative group applications accounted for about 2 out of 3 incoming political applications (i.e., 67%). The other showed conservative apps were about 4 out of 5 (i.e., 80%). The 75% targeting number becomes completely unremarkable in that light; it is proportionate to their incoming volume.

Judicial Watch released this "story" over the weekend. I didn't see anything else in it that was particularly noteworthy. I did note that they had over 900 pages of new email. If their headlined tidbits are the worst they could find, it sounds like a lot of nothing. I browsed through the mail briefly and quickly got bored.

Finally, in case you missed my earlier comment, remember that Judicial Watch is a highly partisan actor, much more so than the Foxes and Daily Callers of the right-wing media. As I pointed out to Werepossum:

"Judicial Watch is suing the IRS, and is thus as partisan (and dishonest) as they come. While they are a handy source of original source materials, posted to their archives, their stories are trash. They are purely self-serving press releases, no more credible than OJ announcing he was going after the real killers."
​

Take their spin with a giant block of salt.

I understand that JW is biased. If you have an objective source covering these recent emails, please link.

 

[ivwshane]

I understand that JW is biased. If you have an objective source covering these recent emails, please link.

You mean like the bi-partisan senate report that looked at those same emails?

 

[Bowfinger]

I understand that JW is biased. If you have an objective source covering these recent emails, please link.

No, that's cool. I wanted to be sure you were aware of their role. I do like the fact they maintain a good archive with so many original source documents. They can be hard to find elsewhere. I just think their stories (press releases, really) are trash.

So, was there anything else you saw in those emails that is noteworthy?

 

[PokerGuy]

You mean like the bi-partisan senate report that looked at those same emails?

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah... bi-partisan. LOL

 

[Fern]

When is the IRS going to release the list of organizations subjected to the improper and intensive 'procedures' in accordance with the subpoena?

Fern