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

[Bowfinger]

So the IRS apologized for inappropriate targeting and Lerner's employment was terminated all because of propaganda?

You're not really that dumb, so I'm going to assume you're being willfully dishonest. Lerner had become a liability at best, and was bringing incredible heat to the IRS. She had to go. The point is this all happened two to three years AFTER her drive crash.

And, no, this wouldn't make for the most extensive, precalculated, and well executed conspiracies ever. First of all, it wasn't well executed, and to date, we aren't talking about extensive, we are talking about a single division and a handful of employees. The underlings don't even have to be part of it, all they have to do is what they are told and need to know little more.

If this were so well executed and precalcuated then we wouldn't even be talking about it. I don't even know why you continue to label it a conspiracy. It was an individual's or maybe a few individuals' bad behavior and poor judgment. That's not a conspiracy, its was just stupid political nonsense.

First, it is sheer nonsense to pretend you aren't making it a conspiracy. There were at least 83 people involved, and that doesn't appear to include other areas purportedly involved. Second, you clearly haven't been reading the emails, so you have no basis for your comment.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why would I need to prove it? It doesn't matter if she did or she didn't. She was already guilty of engaging in inappropriate behavior. The letter, for the last time, doesn't change that.

Basically what's left to argue is if you think she was stupid enough to do what she was doing without an excuse or explanation for her behavior. That's debateable, but really we are just arguing if she is an idiot or not, or to what extent she was. I think its safe to say she wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

I think it's safe to say that you are being deliberately obtuse & shifting the goalposts around as fast as possible.

Explore the possibilities-

She didn't know about Camp's letter & the drive crashed on it own.

She didn't know about Camp's letter but destroyed her drive anyway, which is absurd. She had no reason.

She knew about Camp's letter & the drive crashed on its own.

She knew about Camp's letter & destroyed her drive to cover her tracks.

***You can't prove that she knew about the letter***. Period. You & werepossum merely assume that she did. The "She knew" scenarios are therefore invalid.

Which means that discussion of the drive at all is just a recurrent conspiracy theory circle jerk. You'd last about 2 seconds in a court of law making that argument because it assumes "facts" not in evidence.

 

[xBiffx]

First, it is sheer nonsense to pretend you aren't making it a conspiracy. There were at least 83 people involved, and that doesn't appear to include other areas purportedly involved. Second, you clearly haven't been reading the emails, so you have no basis for your comment.

Wait, so now I'm making it a conspiracy for thinking that the IRS was wrong here, even when they admitted to it. Its conspiracy to think that the wrongdoing should be investigated? That its convenient for the IRS that so many people involved have lost emails?

 

[Jhhnn]

Wait, so now I'm making it a conspiracy for thinking that the IRS was wrong here, even when they admitted to it. Its conspiracy to think that the wrongdoing should be investigated? That its convenient for the IRS that so many people involved have lost emails?

I think it's highly inconvenient for the IRS that there's missing email. That's what lets Issa & cronies keep dragging it out to entertain conspiracy theorists.

In order to claim that's it's suspiciously convenient, you have to show that the loss rate for the individuals involved was higher than the rest of the organization. I suspect they've lost an enormous amount of it simply because of IT practices at the time. Those practices were documented much earlier in this thread.

 

[Bowfinger]

Guess we will see how this turns out.

Another federal judge tells IRS to explain itself on lost emails.

And now we know:

Tea Party loses court battle over targeting to IRS

WASHINGTON -- A federal court dismissed two lawsuits against the Internal Revenue Service Thursday, ruling that the tax agency is no longer targeting conservative tax-exempt groups for greater scrutiny.

"Unless an actual, ongoing controversy exists in this case, this court is without power to decide it," U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton ruled, dismissing one lawsuit brought by True the Vote, a conservative vote-monitoring organization.

True the Vote, an offshoot of the Tea Party-affiliated King Street Patriots, had its application as a social welfare group help up because the IRS suspected it was engaging in direct political election campaigning, which is forbidden under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code. IRS agents found that its web site contained "Democratic attacks and Republican/conservative response," according to confidential IRS documents obtained by USA TODAY. ...

I find the third paragraph especially interesting. It highlights what this targeting was really about, that many of these political 501(c)(4)s submitted fraudulent applications because their focus was politicking, NOT social welfare as required.

 

[Matt1970]

And now we know:


I find the third paragraph especially interesting. It highlights what this targeting was really about, that many of these political 501(c)(4)s submitted fraudulent applications because their focus was politicking, NOT social welfare as required.

That would be the ends justify the means.

 

[Bowfinger]

That would be the ends justify the means.

Nope, it was still a wrong tactic to use inherently partisan keywords. It does demonstrate a legitimate purpose behind it, however.

 

[Matt1970]

Nope, it was still a wrong tactic to use inherently partisan keywords. It does demonstrate a legitimate purpose behind it, however.

That's pretty much what the 'ends justify the means' means. And that is just one example. I am sure if we let cops search every house in America I am sure they will find a lot more examples of illegal activity. Is that what we want?

 

[Bowfinger]

That's pretty much what the 'ends justify the means' means. And that is just one example. I am sure if we let cops search every house in America I am sure they will find a lot more examples of illegal activity. Is that what we want?

Wrong again. What part of "it was still a wrong tactic" is too hard for you? A wrong tactic is wrong, even when there is a legitimate purpose behind it.

 

[Matt1970]

Wrong again. What part of "it was still a wrong tactic" is too hard for you? A wrong tactic is wrong, even when there is a legitimate purpose behind it.

What part of WRONG is too hard for you?

 

[Matt1970]

Let me use your own quotes to explain this a little better.

You are using the ends:

It highlights what this targeting was really about, that many of these political 501(c)(4)s submitted fraudulent applications .

To justify the means:

it was still a wrong tactic to use inherently partisan keywords.

I have no desire or patience to get into another multi-page debate over what words or phrases mean. The IRS fucked up big here. It cost people their jobs and it was very embarrassing for everyone to see our government up to this kind of crap. I don't know why you feel it is your job to go around trying to sugar coat it or in some small way justify it. It is what it is. Get over it.

 

[ivwshane]

Let me use your own quotes to explain this a little better.

You are using the ends:



To justify the means:



I have no desire or patience to get into another multi-page debate over what words or phrases mean. The IRS fucked up big here. It cost people their jobs and it was very embarrassing for everyone to see our government up to this kind of crap. I don't know why you feel it is your job to go around trying to sugar coat it or in some small way justify it. It is what it is. Get over it.

Except, he's not justifying it. So in essence he's saying the ends don't justify the means.

 

[Bowfinger]

Let me use your own quotes to explain this a little better.

You are using the ends:


To justify the means:


I have no desire or patience to get into another multi-page debate over what words or phrases mean. The IRS fucked up big here. It cost people their jobs and it was very embarrassing for everyone to see our government up to this kind of crap. I don't know why you feel it is your job to go around trying to sugar coat it or in some small way justify it. It is what it is. Get over it.

You remain wrong. You've again demonstrated your failures to comprehend simple English communications and to analyze situations with intelligence and honesty. I am not suggesting the end justifies the means. If anything, the means sabotaged the proper end by making it too politically charged to properly go after these fraudulent "social welfare" groups. Your problem is you started with your partisan conclusion drawn from nutter propaganda, and now try to jam everything into perverted caricature of reality.

The IRS started with a legitimate purpose. After Citizens United, they noted an influx of political groups fraudulently posing as social welfare organizations. By law those applications should be denied, and the applicants potentially prosecuted. The IRS agents screening these applications recognized the problem, but also knew they were stepping into a mine field. They sought guidance, and were told to forward such applications for review while the IRS decided how to handle them. Up until this point, based on all evidence shown to date, the IRS acted properly.

Those agents apparently sought a quick and consistent process for identifying these questionable applications. One tactic they picked was matching applicant names with a set of political -- but partisan -- keywords. That was the wrong in this story. By using partisan keywords, the IRS made the process politically biased. That is never acceptable, even though it was effective. So no, my boy, the end does not justify the means, no matter how badly you need to lie about me. The partisan keyword tactic was not justified, even with good intent.

And no, the IRS did not "fuck up big here." They made a mistake, absolutely, but it was an honest mistake (based on everything shown so far) and it was corrected. It became blown way out of proportion thanks to the usual RNC smear tactics and the usual weak-minded nutter outrage junkies, eager to fall into line with the rest of the rubes based on propaganda, disinformation, and blind hatred for anything associated with President Obama.

 

[Bowfinger]

Except, he's not justifying it. So in essence he's saying the ends don't justify the means.

Yes, but it's not even that I'm in essence saying it. I directly stated the end does not justify the means. Matching names to partisan keywords was wrong, period.

 

[Matt1970]

Whatever, live in your altered reality. People don't come out and admit what they did, resign in shame and have the President even came out and condemned it if it were an "honest mistake".

 

[Bowfinger]

Whatever, live in your altered reality. People don't come out and admit what they did, resign in shame and have the President even came out and condemned it if it were an "honest mistake".

Yes, people with integrity do those kinds of things when they screw up. That you are unfamiliar with this says much about you. Oh, and Lerner didn't resign in shame. She was forced to retire because she'd become a political target, a liability to the IRS. She continues to maintain she did nothing wrong. Finally, my so-called altered reality is supported by the evidence and investigations published to date. Yours is supported by Issa, Fox, and the other professional liars of the nutter disinformation bubble. Face it, you were played again and are too proud to admit it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yes, people with integrity do those kinds of things when they screw up. That you are unfamiliar with this says much about you. Oh, and Lerner didn't resign in shame. She was forced to retire because she'd become a political target, a liability to the IRS. She continues to maintain she did nothing wrong. Finally, my so-called altered reality is supported by the evidence and investigations published to date. Yours is supported by Issa, Fox, and the other professional liars of the nutter disinformation bubble. Face it, you were played again and are too proud to admit it.

Pride is the face we put on shame. It's what he feels and alters reality to deny he feels. It also explains why he has to see unbiased reasoning as the altered reality.

 

[ChunkiMunki]

And no, the IRS did not "fuck up big here." They made a mistake, absolutely, but it was an honest mistake (based on everything shown so far) and it was corrected. It became blown way out of proportion thanks to the usual RNC smear tactics and the usual weak-minded nutter outrage junkies, eager to fall into line with the rest of the rubes based on propaganda, disinformation, and blind hatred for anything associated with President Obama.

So true, but their minds are made up, and no amount of reason will change that....so sad.

 

[PokerGuy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by xBiffx
Guess we will see how this turns out.

Another federal judge tells IRS to explain itself on lost emails.

And now we know:
Quote:
Tea Party loses court battle over targeting to IRS

WASHINGTON -- A federal court dismissed two lawsuits against the Internal Revenue Service Thursday, ruling that the tax agency is no longer targeting conservative tax-exempt groups for greater scrutiny.

"Unless an actual, ongoing controversy exists in this case, this court is without power to decide it," U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton ruled, dismissing one lawsuit brought by True the Vote, a conservative vote-monitoring organization.

True the Vote, an offshoot of the Tea Party-affiliated King Street Patriots, had its application as a social welfare group help up because the IRS suspected it was engaging in direct political election campaigning, which is forbidden under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code. IRS agents found that its web site contained "Democratic attacks and Republican/conservative response," according to confidential IRS documents obtained by USA TODAY. ...
I find the third paragraph especially interesting. It highlights what this targeting was really about, that many of these political 501(c)(4)s submitted fraudulent applications because their focus was politicking, NOT social welfare as required.

The crucial words:

ruling that the tax agency is no longer targeting conservative tax-exempt groups for greater scrutiny.

So basically -- "yes, they were abusing conservative groups, but they are no longer doing it, so my hands are tied".

Sure, that sounds like a ringing endorsement of the IRS doesn't it? Not.

Bottom line, the IRS was abusing conservative citizens based on politics, the abuse came to light and the spotlight got bright enough to force the IRS to be more discreet about their abuse going forward. Lefties are ok with the abuse because conservatives were the target. Lets see if they are equally ok with it when one of their pet groups become the targets.

 

[Bowfinger]

The crucial words:

So basically -- "yes, they were abusing conservative groups, but they are no longer doing it, so my hands are tied".

Sure, that sounds like a ringing endorsement of the IRS doesn't it? Not.

Bottom line, the IRS was abusing conservative citizens based on politics, the abuse came to light and the spotlight got bright enough to force the IRS to be more discreet about their abuse going forward. Lefties are ok with the abuse because conservatives were the target. Lets see if they are equally ok with it when one of their pet groups become the targets.

Maybe, but that's no reason to disband the IRS and throw all its employees in prison. What? You didn't say that? Well I never said this was a ringing endorsement of the IRS, and the judge never said the IRS was "abusing" conservatives, but that didn't stop you from launching dishonest straw man attacks.

I reported a simple fact, following up on an earlier post. That this seemingly angers you is not my problem. That the facts revealed to date do not agree with your party's propaganda is also not my problem.

 

[xBiffx]

Toolfinger's repeated mischaracterization of the court's decision shows you how useless he really is.

The court had to make the decision it did because there was no current standing for many of the plantiff's in that case. They can no longer prove harm, so therefore the case can't go forward. Makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is Toolfingers repeated attempt to use this as justification of the IRS's actions here. Nowhere did the court adjudicate the IRS behavior, nor did they even come close to exonerating it either, and no rational person looks at this and says the IRS simply "made a mistake."

All the decision means is that the groups in question aren't getting a judgement on the matter. It doesn't mean squat for the IRS nor the investigation of it that continues in congress.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Nothing to see here...just two rogue employees in the Cincinnati office...move along please.

 

[xBiffx]

Nothing to see here...just two rogue employees in the Cincinnati office...move along please.

Funny you mention that. It appears Woodward would want to recruit Bernstein to move to Cincinnati for another game of cat and mouse if he were only a little younger.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjgTbe4j0yg

 

[PokerGuy]

the judge never said the IRS was "abusing" conservatives

Actually, he did. He used the word "targeting", but in the context of the IRS as the revenue collecting arm of the government targeting people based on political affiliation that is abuse.

I reported a simple fact, following up on an earlier post. That this seemingly angers you is not my problem.

The ruling doesn't anger me in the least, the judge didn't rule on the merits of the case or on the conduct of the IRS, he simply can't proceed on this particular case because the plaintiffs don't have standing --- the IRS has (supposedly) stopped targeting conservatives. In fact the ruling actually specifically states that conservatives were "targeted".

That the facts revealed to date do not agree with your party's propaganda is also not my problem.

I'm not sure which party that would be, I don't adhere or belong to any particular party. The facts revealed to this point are abundantly clear to anyone outside of those who are OK with the IRS use as a political attack dog (that would be you). To others it is clear, and the bright spotlight has at least somewhat neutered the ability of the IRS to be used that way again for a little bit.

 

[Bowfinger]

Toolfinger's repeated mischaracterization of the court's decision shows you how useless he really is.

The court had to make the decision it did because there was no current standing for many of the plantiff's in that case. They can no longer prove harm, so therefore the case can't go forward. Makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is Toolfingers repeated attempt to use this as justification of the IRS's actions here. Nowhere did the court adjudicate the IRS behavior, nor did they even come close to exonerating it either, and no rational person looks at this and says the IRS simply "made a mistake."

All the decision means is that the groups in question aren't getting a judgement on the matter. It doesn't mean squat for the IRS nor the investigation of it that continues in congress.

Learn to read, you half-witted twit (or maybe more accurately, quit your lying). I did not say any of the things you insinuate I said. I just provided an update and quoted the article. That you cannot abide this or address it honestly only reinforces your role as a failbot.