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

[Doc Savage Fan]

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

Bi-partisan my ass...did you read the minority conclusions?

Based on the facts identified in the Subcommittee’s investigation, the IRS used
inappropriate criteria to target specific conservative groups for increased scrutiny and delay.
While the Majority report attempts to draw similarities between the IRS’s treatment of liberal
and conservative groups, the vast distinctions in treatment prove that conservative groups
received the bulk of unfair and burdensome treatment. The IRS failed to use its own “facts and
circumstances” test, leading IRS employees to focus on a group’s name or policy positions
instead of the group’s potential political activities. This significant bias created a disparate
impact on conservative groups. As shown above, the numbers and analysis by TIGTA and
others clearly demonstrate that TIGTA’s conclusions were proper and the objections raised by
numerous conservative groups valid. TIGTA’s audit provided a prudent statistical analysis of
the inappropriate treatment of conservative groups by the IRS.

 

[PokerGuy]

Bi-partisan my ass...did you read the minority conclusions?

Basically, the majority said "I don't care what the stats say, we don't want to believe there was anything political going on, so that's the story and we're sticking to it". The stupid/gullible and those who are OK with political abuse as long as it's the "other side" on the receiving end will fall for it as being a "bi-partisan" report.

 

[Bowfinger]

Bi-partisan my ass...did you read the minority conclusions?

I read through sections of the minority report. I note that most of their criticisms apparently ignore the fact that the IRS received far more conservative applications than liberal applications (somewhere around 67% to 80% conservative, as I cited in my first reply to you). Without considering this and adjusting proportionately, complaints about "the bulk ..." and "disparate impact" are empty whining. The fact that they have the data to do such adjustments yet chose not to suggests this was likely intentional.

I also note that they greatly focused on defending the TIGTA report. That report found no evidence of partisan intent in the IRS targeting.

That said, I'm sure there is also plenty of spin in the parts of the report written by committee Democrats. I'm not hugely interested in their spin, either. What I am most interested in are the facts they collected jointly. There is a lot of factual information in there that we could only speculate about previously. I'd love to have access to all the source materials they cite.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Basically, the majority said "I don't care what the stats say, we don't want to believe there was anything political going on, so that's the story and we're sticking to it". The stupid/gullible and those who are OK with political abuse as long as it's the "other side" on the receiving end will fall for it as being a "bi-partisan" report.

Using his logic, Issa's investigation was "bi-partisan" as well.

 

[Bowfinger]

Basically, the majority said "I don't care what the stats say, we don't want to believe there was anything political going on, so that's the story and we're sticking to it". The stupid/gullible and those who are OK with political abuse as long as it's the "other side" on the receiving end will fall for it as being a "bi-partisan" report.

No, that's not what the stats said at all. You shouldn't be tarring others as "stupid/gullible" if that's what you got out of this. The minority report has at least as much spin as the main report, and the main report does a better job of supporting conclusions with data (allowing one to reach independent conclusions). That's one reason it's an order of magnitude longer than the minority report. The minority report is more of an op-ed than an actual report.

 

[Jhhnn]

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?

Anybody with a lick of sense would have asserted their 5th amendment rights in the face of Issa's loaded questions. That's why he pursued it the way he did, so as to create this perpetual tempest in a teapot. It's what he wanted Lerner to do.

Repubs are free to force Lerner to testify under a grant of immunity any time they choose. It's all they need do to achieve the "transparency" you assert that you want.

The only thing they've accomplished in the meanwhile is to keep the conspiracy theorists twitterpatted with ongoing bits of bullshit interpretation of whatever they can dredge up.

 

[Jhhnn]

Let us say, just for the sake of argument, that the Senate minority report is 100% accurate.

The upshot is that apologies have been issued, procedures changed, & heads rolled all the way to the top of the IRS. It is extremely likely that the IRS will handle the 501(c)4 situation with kid gloves for many years to come.

How will all this raving about the secret meaning of emails & crashed hard drives change any of that? What's the point?

 

[ivwshane]

Bi-partisan my ass...did you read the minority conclusions?

Yes I did and the majority report addressed every issue including the one you quoted. Does their explanation not make sense to you? Is this another case of CBD?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Repubs are free to force Lerner to testify under a grant of immunity any time they choose. It's all they need do to achieve the "transparency" you assert that you want.

I agree that they should have granted her immunity from the beginning of this mess and have stated so previously.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yes I did and the majority report addressed every issue including the one you quoted. Does their explanation not make sense to you? Is this another case of CBD?

Yes...it's got to be CBD. Damn you're sharp!

 

[DominionSeraph]

I agree that they should have granted her immunity from the beginning of this mess and have stated so previously.

This is why Issa's the congressman and you're not: He knows what you want better than you.

 

[Jhhnn]

I agree that they should have granted her immunity from the beginning of this mess and have stated so previously.

Then why do you support this circus?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Then why do you support this circus?

I don't...beyond wanting to get to the bottom of it and understand what actually happened.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't...beyond wanting to get to the bottom of it and understand what actually happened.

We already know all of it that actually matters.

Repubs can go on forever about the email as if it actually matters. It doesn't. Werepossum can go around in circles about failed hard drives & conspiracy theory around that, too, even though it's transparently lame.

Conservative funders got what they wanted. They're free to buy political muscle with their 501(c)4 empire. And they're free to do so in anonymity. If you're trying to buy the govt, which is what it amounts to, then you need to be able to do so anonymously or too many people will figure it out, reveal the fact that you're buying the govt.

They clearly want a lot more. I laid it out here, promptly ignored-

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36689541&postcount=46

Philosophically, do you think that people have the right to know where the money in politics comes from? Or not?

That's the real issue underlying all of this.

 

[Zorkorist]

Wow, Jhnnn,

No. Of course we don't have a right to know where money in politics comes from! It takes a FUCKED UP government to track each penny spent.

WHAT WE DO HAVE, is FREEDOM OF SPEECH, and if we want to give a politician money WE CAN.

So you need to re-evaluate who is free here. It's not Government.

-John

 

[Jhhnn]

Wow, Jhnnn,

No. Of course we don't have a right to know where money in politics comes from! It takes a FUCKED UP government to track each penny spent.

WHAT WE DO HAVE, is FREEDOM OF SPEECH, and if we want to give a politician money WE CAN.

So you need to re-evaluate who is free here. It's not Government.

-John

Drunk again, huh?

 

[Zorkorist]

Yeah.

Plastered.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

What's your excuse?

-John

 

[Jhhnn]

What's your excuse?

-John

I need none.

Contribution limits aside, transparency doesn't limit anybody's right to spend money on politics.

It all boils down to knowing who's paying and for what.

I mean, when rich people give money to buy University facilities, clinics, art museums or whatever, the want their name on on it. When they give money to buy politicians & influence elections, they don't want anybody to know about it.

Go figure.

 

[Zorkorist]

What the fuck are you talking about?!

Of course contribution limits limit people's rights to spend money!

they limit people's rights to express themselves.

They limit peoples rights to FREEDOM!

Campaign Spending Limits, Limit Freedom.

It's that easy.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

When Government becomes involved, you know, the one with WAR MACHINES and SOLDIERS, then FREEDOM IS AT RISK.

So, WHO is limiting FREEDOM?!

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

It's the same when Government abuses their power, and attacks organizations like the Tea Party. Unforgettable, and unforgiveable.

-John

 

[ivwshane]

You are.

 

[ivwshane]

A retarded.

 

[ivwshane]

Bitch! He said nothing about.