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

[Cozarkian]

Oops!!

From June 2013:
http://m.washingtonpost.com/busines...l?Post+generic=?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost


So are you guys just uninformed? Stupid? Partisan hacks, or parrots unable to think for yourself?

New information has been discovered determining that myth is false.

http://oversight.house.gov/release/new-oversight-report-debunks-myth-liberal-groups-targeted-irs/

 

[dank69]

Because of course if I were REALLY reasonable, I too would march in lockstep with the left no matter what they do.

If you believe that the people who agree with one side 100% of the time are reasonable and the people who split 40/60 are the unreasonable partisans, you seriously need to seek a refund from either your university or your church, for either your thinking skills or your honesty are seriously malfunctioning. But thanks for playing.

Don't be mad, you just aren't fooling me. Throw around as much hyperbole as you feel necessary, though. Totally reinforces your "reasonable" image.

 

[fskimospy]

Don't be mad, you just aren't fooling me. Throw around as much hyperbole as you feel necessary, though. Totally reinforces your "reasonable" image.

The guy who relates his political opponents to North Koreans can't figure out why the rest if is don't find him reasonable.

Actually that's not true. He believes the rest of us don't find him reasonable because we are either insane or engaging in a coordinated mass deception campaign. The guy has just lost it.

 

[ivwshane]

New information has been discovered determining that myth is false.

http://oversight.house.gov/release/new-oversight-report-debunks-myth-liberal-groups-targeted-irs/

Lol, you were spoon fed shit and you ate it up a regurgitated the talking points like a good little parrot.

One dead give away that you are being fed bullshit are these lines:

Congressional Democrats made misleading claims about the targeting. Democratic Members of Congress, including Ranking Member Elijah Cummings, Ranking Member Sander Levin, and Representative Gerry Connolly, made misleading claims that the IRS targeted liberal-oriented groups based on documents selectively produced by the IRS. (pp. 7-13)

Followed by this contradiction:

MYTH: Progressive groups were also targeted.Only seven applications in the IRS backlog contained the word “progressive,” all of which were then approved by the IRS, while Tea Party groups received unprecedented review and experienced years-long delays. While some liberal-oriented groups were singled out for scrutiny, evidence shows it was due to non-political reasons. (pp. 32-35)

Lol!

 

[werepossum]

The guy who relates his political opponents to North Koreans can't figure out why the rest if is don't find him reasonable.

Actually that's not true. He believes the rest of us don't find him reasonable because we are either insane or engaging in a coordinated mass deception campaign. The guy has just lost it.

I related SOME of my political opponents to North Koreans in one small area - ferocity of toeing the party line.

For the record you're the one who continually claims people are insane if they disagree with you. I'm merely pointing out that some people are being completely dishonest in pretending to disagree with me.

 

[Fern]

Lol, you were spoon fed shit and you ate it up a regurgitated the talking points like a good little parrot.

One dead give away that you are being fed bullshit are these lines:

Congressional Democrats made misleading claims about the targeting. Democratic Members of Congress, including Ranking Member Elijah Cummings, Ranking Member Sander Levin, and Representative Gerry Connolly, made misleading claims that the IRS targeted liberal-oriented groups based on documents selectively produced by the IRS. (pp. 7-13)

Followed by this contradiction:

MYTH: Progressive groups were also targeted.Only seven applications in the IRS backlog contained the word “progressive,” all of which were then approved by the IRS, while Tea Party groups received unprecedented review and experienced years-long delays. While some liberal-oriented groups were singled out for scrutiny, evidence shows it was due to non-political reasons. (pp. 32-35)

Lol!

The above info doesn't disprove anything. It's insufficient to do so.

The IRS has two systems to review tax exempt applicants:

1. The long established 'normal' system. I have been helping clients navigate this for many years. This system is designed to ensure that the correct application for was filed, that the form was complete (there can be many schedules that are required to be attached to the application form), that all appropriate sections of the forms/schedules have been completed, that the claimed purpose (usually an essay answer) meets the requirements for tax exempt status, and that the application is properly signed and dated etc..

These forms can be very complicated, most are. Applications/forms are sent back when corrections are needed. But this has nothing to do with an applicant's political leanings etc.

2. The new system targeting political groups ("Targeted" is key here. There is no targeting in the normal system).

There's no evidence that the liberal groups were "targeted" under system #2. It may well be that they fell under system #1 because of errors or omissions on their application form(s).

Also I think it important that the liberal groups were apparently approved quickly and were not subject to the unprecedented review that TEA Party groups were. That should be a pretty strong hint.

Fern

 

[Cozarkian]

That's not contradictory, it's analysis and explanation as to why a statement that seems valid on its face was misleading upon further exploration.

If you want to invade Iraq and know it might cause public backlash, do you think it might be wise to fabricate intelligence of WMDs?

If you want to harass conservative non profit groups, do you think it might be a good idea to cover your ass by including at least a few liberal groups, none of which will actually be exposed to the same level of scrutiny?

The higher ups in politics aren't monkeys that are incapable of guarding against potential exposure of inappropriate behavior.

 

[Bowfinger]

There has not been and will not be a credible citation supporting this claim. However, I can link you to the IRS report. The chart is on page 8. http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/05/politics/irs-timeline/index.html This is what you guys used as "proof" that there was no wrongdoing in the original thread.

It also has such gems as "Determination Unit employees stated that they considered the Tea Party criterion as a shorthand term for all potential political cases."

Linking random documents and blowing smoke does not make your case. There is literally nothing in the IG report to support your claim that, "The Obama administration has claimed that sixty percent of the groups targeted (of which we've seen three) were not conservative groups." Not. One. Word. The Inspector General explicitly refused to make any characterization whatsoever of the political leanings of the other ~200 groups targeted. This fact has been documented here many, many times.

So, once again, put up or shut up. Can you offer anything credible to support your assertion that, "The Obama administration has claimed that sixty percent of the groups targeted (of which we've seen three) were not conservative groups," or should we conclude that your rectum is beginning to suffer abrasion damage?

This came about as a defense after we learned that in fact the political targeting continued for more than a year after the administration said it was shut down. http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/24/politics/irs-targeting/

Read it again, Sparky. It specifically states IRS employees continued using "OTHER" lists for more than a year:

"Werfel was informed on June 12, 2013, that other BOLO lists were still in use. He immediately suspended use of any BOLO lists by the unit that handles tax-exempt applications, his review said."
​

Other, as in, NOT the Tea Party BOLO list they were ordered to stop using. The fact is that the IRS began using BOLO lists for targeting long before they added the Tea Party list.

Mankind has not yet gone as deep down as the proggies set the bar for this administration. Imagine the furor had Nixon claimed he wasn't trying to use the IRS against his political enemies, it just accidentally happened - and he has proof, which will merely take a few years to provide.

Yawn. More RNC-approved dissembling. Film at 11!

 

[werepossum]

Linking random documents and blowing smoke does not make your case. There is literally nothing in the IG report to support your claim that, "The Obama administration has claimed that sixty percent of the groups targeted (of which we've seen three) were not conservative groups." Not. One. Word. The Inspector General explicitly refused to make any characterization whatsoever of the political leanings of the other ~200 groups targeted. This fact has been documented here many, many times.

So, once again, put up or shut up. Can you offer anything credible to support your assertion that, "The Obama administration has claimed that sixty percent of the groups targeted (of which we've seen three) were not conservative groups," or should we conclude that your rectum is beginning to suffer abrasion damage?

SNIP

Not sure what you're arguing here. Are you claiming that the "other" are in fact also conservative groups, as I suspect?

Perhaps I should restate it and perhaps you'll understand. Under the IRS report, AT LEAST 32% of the groups targeted are beyond any shadow of a doubt conservative groups. That everyone admits. Of the other 68%, the IRS has produced a grand total of seven which are progressive - 2%. The IRS CLAIMS that the others were not conservative, but has not identified any others so we have no way to know if that is true or simply more dissembling.

Did you perhaps miss the "not" when you read and quoted my statement?

 

[werepossum]

SNIP
Read it again, Sparky. It specifically states IRS employees continued using "OTHER" lists for more than a year:

"Werfel was informed on June 12, 2013, that other BOLO lists were still in use. He immediately suspended use of any BOLO lists by the unit that handles tax-exempt applications, his review said."
​

Other, as in, NOT the Tea Party BOLO list they were ordered to stop using. The fact is that the IRS began using BOLO lists for targeting long before they added the Tea Party list.
SNIP

From the article:

Use of some lists of conservative labels for further screening stopped in May 2012 when IRS officials were first notified of the practice.

However, Werfel's review showed that other inappropriate lists continued to be used until as recently as this month by the unit that handles tax-exempt applications.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I related SOME of my political opponents to North Koreans in one small area - ferocity of toeing the party line.

For the record you're the one who continually claims people are insane if they disagree with you. I'm merely pointing out that some people are being completely dishonest in pretending to disagree with me.

Double standards are typically dismissed without a thought, or easily rationalized if a couple neurons happen to fire. And any smidgen of hyperbole is like a shiny object to some regardless of your intent or clarification...once introduced, it's grossly exaggerated, ridiculed and paraded around for petty amusement among the like-minded. Human beings are curious creatures.

 

[MongGrel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqreRufrkxM

 

[werepossum]

Double standards are typically dismissed without a thought, or easily rationalized if a couple neurons happen to fire. And any smidgen of hyperbole is like a shiny object to some regardless of your intent or clarification...once introduced, it's grossly exaggerated, ridiculed and paraded around for petty amusement among the like-minded. Human beings are curious creatures.

That's true, but at some level of stupidity and/or dishonesty, nothing but hyperbole really qualifies as a response.

 

[Bowfinger]

Not sure what you're arguing here. Are you claiming that the "other" are in fact also conservative groups, as I suspect?

Perhaps I should restate it and perhaps you'll understand. Under the IRS report, AT LEAST 32% of the groups targeted are beyond any shadow of a doubt conservative groups. That everyone admits. Of the other 68%, the IRS has produced a grand total of seven which are progressive - 2%. The IRS CLAIMS that the others were not conservative, but has not identified any others so we have no way to know if that is true or simply more dissembling.

Did you perhaps miss the "not" when you read and quoted my statement?

I am stating that we do not know the political leaning of the other ~200 groups, nor the specific mechanisms used to select them for additional scrutiny. Also, to clarify one point, the IRS produced seven groups that had "progressive" in their names. Finally, none of this supports your assertion that:

"The Obama administration has claimed that sixty percent of the groups targeted (of which we've seen three) were not conservative groups."

Those are your words. You asserted that as fact. Can you cite anything credible to support it or not? If not, we must assume it's just another lie.

 

[Fern]

When is the IRS going to comply with the the subpoena and produce the list of targeted groups?

Fern

 

[thraashman]

When is the IRS going to comply with the the subpoena and produce the list of targeted groups?

Fern

The IRS should take as long as possible to ensure that all information given to any committee Issa is on has absolutely no sensitive data on it. Issa has proven multiple times that he is perfect ok illegally releasing to the public sensitive or classified information.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
2. The new system targeting political groups ("Targeted" is key here. There is no targeting in the normal system).

There's no evidence that the liberal groups were "targeted" under system #2. It may well be that they fell under system #1 because of errors or omissions on their application form(s).

Also I think it important that the liberal groups were apparently approved quickly and were not subject to the unprecedented review that TEA Party groups were. That should be a pretty strong hint.

Fern

No evidence except for the BOLO lists with left-leaning words and phrases, you mean. Your supposition is meaningless, yet you present it as if it proves something. On the contrary, all it shows is that you picked a side.

The fact remains we have no data on the makeup of the other ~200 applications pulled, nor do we know the mechanisms used. We have no data on how quickly each of the 297 applications were processed, nor about how that correlates with ideology. All we have are a handful of anecdotes, pushed by partisan actors with agendas. I, too, would like to see the full list so we can stop the supposition and innuendo and actually learn the facts.

 

[Fern]

The IRS should take as long as possible to ensure that all information given to any committee Issa is on has absolutely no sensitive data on it. Issa has proven multiple times that he is perfect ok illegally releasing to the public sensitive or classified information.

I'm curious what info you think might is sensitive?

The orgs tax returns must be made available to the public.

The orgs names are public knowledge. See here. You got any questions about them you can't find out about on the IRS's site, just give 'em a call: http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Search-for-Charities

The subpoena is for just a list, right? (Honest question; I've never seen the subpoena.)

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

New information has been discovered determining that myth is false.

http://oversight.house.gov/release/new-oversight-report-debunks-myth-liberal-groups-targeted-irs/

There's nothing new about it. It's Darrell Issa publishing a purely Republican report attacking Democrats for not laying down and accepting Issa's lies. Look at the "report". Note, for example, how Issa first denies the IRS targeted liberal groups, then goes on to whine about how the targeted liberal groups were treated differently. It is full of such dishonest hyperbole and spin.

 

[werepossum]

I am stating that we do not know the political leaning of the other ~200 groups, nor the specific mechanisms used to select them for additional scrutiny. Also, to clarify one point, the IRS produced seven groups that had "progressive" in their names. Finally, none of this supports your assertion that:

Those are your words. You asserted that as fact. Can you cite anything credible to support it or not? If not, we must assume it's just another lie.

Just to make clear to what you're taking issue:
We know that at least 32% or 96 of the targeted groups were conservative. T/F?

We know that at least 2% or 7 of the targeted groups were conservative. T/F?

We do not know the political leanings (if any) of the remaining targeted groups. T/F?

Are you:
1. Claiming that more than 68% of the targeted groups were conservative?

2. Claiming that less than 68% of the targeted groups were conservative?

3. Claiming that the Obama administration has never mentioned this?

4. Claiming that the Obama administration does not exist?

Just to be clear, this is a claim that the Obama administration (including the IRS) has raised in defense.

 

[Bowfinger]

Just to make clear to what you're taking issue:
We know that at least 32% or 96 of the targeted groups were conservative. T/F?

We know that at least 2% or 7 of the targeted groups were conservative. T/F?

We do not know the political leanings (if any) of the remaining targeted groups. T/F?

Are you:
1. Claiming that more than 68% of the targeted groups were conservative?

2. Claiming that less than 68% of the targeted groups were conservative?

3. Claiming that the Obama administration has never mentioned this?

4. Claiming that the Obama administration does not exist?

Just to be clear, this is a claim that the Obama administration (including the IRS) has raised in defense.

(I assume we are discussing the 297 applications included in the TIGTA report. I don't have the exact numbers you use memorized, but I will accept them for the sake of this post. I assume they are right.)

We know that 96 groups had Tea Party or a related term from one BOLO list in their names. I presume they are likely all conservative.

If memory serves, the 7 "progressive" groups came from a different set of applications examined by the House Ways and Means Committee. I do not know if they are a subset of the TIGTA applications, or a set of applications selected independently. I therefore cannot offer any conclusions about them. (By the way, I assume you left a "not" out of that point.) I do presume that groups with "Progressive" in their names are likely not conservative.

I agree that we do not know the political leanings of the targeted groups in the TIGTA report.

1 & 2. I do not know the political leanings of the other targeted groups. I presume that more than 32% and less than 100% are conservative.

3. Clarify. The Obama administration has never mentioned what, specifically?

4. Don't be an ass.

5. What does any of this have to do with your assertion:

"The Obama administration has claimed that sixty percent of the groups targeted (of which we've seen three) were not conservative groups."
​

I've seen nothing from anyone in the Obama administration making any claim remotely like that. All we have is your assertion they said it, a claim you continue to fail to support.

 

[werepossum]

(I assume we are discussing the 297 applications included in the TIGTA report. I don't have the exact numbers you use memorized, but I will accept them for the sake of this post. I assume they are right.)

We know that 96 groups had Tea Party or a related term from one BOLO list in their names. I presume they are likely all conservative.

If memory serves, the 7 "progressive" groups came from a different set of applications examined by the House Ways and Means Committee. I do not know if they are a subset of the TIGTA applications, or a set of applications selected independently. I therefore cannot offer any conclusions about them. (By the way, I assume you left a "not" out of that point.) I do presume that groups with "Progressive" in their names are likely not conservative.

I agree that we do not know the political leanings of the targeted groups in the TIGTA report.

1 & 2. I do not know the political leanings of the other targeted groups. I presume that more than 32% and less than 100% are conservative.

3. Clarify. The Obama administration has never mentioned what, specifically?

4. Don't be an ass.

5. What does any of this have to do with your assertion:

"The Obama administration has claimed that sixty percent of the groups targeted (of which we've seen three) were not conservative groups."
​

I've seen nothing from anyone in the Obama administration making any claim remotely like that. All we have is your assertion they said it, a claim you continue to fail to support.

Do you consider the IRS to be part of the Obama administration, or is there executive branch and then the other executive branch?

 

[Bowfinger]

Do you consider the IRS to be part of the Obama administration, or is there executive branch and then the other executive branch?

Generally speaking, no, but I'm not quibbling that point. Please cite a credible source showing:

The [IRS] has claimed that sixty percent of the groups targeted (of which we've seen three) were not conservative groups.
​

That's the issue you're either evading or not getting. I don't know of anyone who claims the IRS targeted mostly liberal groups, let alone any officials tied to the Obama administration.

 

[werepossum]

Generally speaking, no, but I'm not quibbling that point. Please cite a credible source showing:

The [IRS] has claimed that sixty percent of the groups targeted (of which we've seen three) were not conservative groups.
​

That's the issue you're either evading or not getting. I don't know of anyone who claims the IRS targeted mostly liberal groups, let alone any officials tied to the Obama administration.

Wow, you CAN eventually come to the point! My post:

When the price to be considered reasonable is to swallow such huge lies as truth, there can be no one who can claim to be conservative and also be considered reasonable by progressives. You have framed "reasonable" as swallowing whatever tripe the Obama administration chooses to put out as the Gospel, no matter how incompatible it is with known truth.

You guys have gone full retard, to the point that the Obama administration isn't even trying anymore. The Obama administration has claimed that sixty percent of the groups targeted (of which we've seen three) were not conservative groups, yet is unwilling to provide names even though they had to have counted them a year ago to reach that conclusion. The Obama administration claims it will take years to produce Lerner's emails. The Obama administration has been caught not releasing to Congress subpoenaed documents, as well as re-classifying declassified documents already under subpoena and redacting as privileged national security comments which we now see are purely political. And the ONLY reaction by proggies has been "GO TEAM!" The left in this nation has far surpassed Russian levels of partisanship and moved firmly into North Korean territory.

Let's examine what I posted

The Obama administration has claimed that sixty percent of the groups targeted (of which we've seen three) were not conservative groups, yet is unwilling to provide names even though they had to have counted them a year ago to reach that conclusion.

versus what you are accusing:

I don't know of anyone who claims the IRS targeted mostly liberal groups, let alone any officials tied to the Obama administration.

Anyone see the difference? Anyone? Bueller?

All right. Saying that the Obama administration claims that sixty percent of the groups targeted were not conservative groups is NOT saying that the Obama administration claims that the IRS targeted mostly liberal groups. By any interpretation, not all 501(c)(4) groups are affiliated with any political movement. Fair enough?

 

[Bowfinger]

Wow, you CAN eventually come to the point! My post:

Let's examine what I posted

versus what you are accusing:

Anyone see the difference? Anyone? Bueller?

All right. Saying that the Obama administration claims that sixty percent of the groups targeted were not conservative groups is NOT saying that the Obama administration claims that the IRS targeted mostly liberal groups. By any interpretation, not all 501(c)(4) groups are affiliated with any political movement. Fair enough?

Blah, blah, blah. Cite a credible source supporting your allegation.

I don't give a damn about nit-picking semantics. In five of my prior posts, I quoted you verbatim. You dodged and weaved and waved your hands, failing again and again to cite your source. If you cannot do so, let's just stipulate that you're lying again and move on.