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

[schmuckley]

Hmm..No one's ever heard of Watergate?
Yeah..Nixon was impeached for that.
and he was a repooblican.

If this goes on unchecked,they owe him an apology.

 

[werepossum]

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.

Yes, you quoted me verbatim. I wasn't dodging and weaving and waving my hands, your challenge made absolutely no sense because what I posted is the administration position - that only 32% of the challenged groups are conservative. You're demanding that I post "a credible source" - I quoted the fucking IRS report. Again, this is BEST CASE for the administration, which is why I made the point that although this is the claim, no backup has been provided to show that it is only 32%.

Are you honestly this stupid? Are you truly unable to read what you quote? This isn't semantics, nor is it an allegation. It's the official report, and again, this is the BEST CASE for the administration, showing that only a minority of groups targeted were conservative. The absolute minimum number is 32% due to the overall number and the groups already identified; you're challenging me on a number that could only get worse for the administration. If I was wrong, the malfeasance would be worse, not less, with MORE conservative groups out of the same overall number. Sheesh.

If there's someone here who is fluent in moron and can explain this to Bowfinger in a way he can understand, I'd be much obliged.

 

[Cozarkian]

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.

Let me see if I understand. We should believe a Washington post article that is based on comments/claims made by politically motivated people (and people afraid of losing their jobs) without any investigation as to whether those comments were accurate; and further, we should disregard a report that includes verifiable source material, including congressional testimony, because the author is motivated by a similar political desire?

 

[fskimospy]

Let me see if I understand. We should believe a Washington post article that is based on comments/claims made by politically motivated people (and people afraid of losing their jobs) without any investigation as to whether those comments were accurate; and further, we should disregard a report that includes verifiable source material, including congressional testimony, because the author is motivated by a similar political desire?

I don't know how you could have gotten that from what he wrote. He's saying the report was so hackishly and shoddily written that it contradicts itself internally.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Hmm..No one's ever heard of Watergate?
Yeah..Nixon was impeached for that.
and he was a repooblican.

If this goes on unchecked,they owe him an apology.

The IRS owes him an apology?

!confused!

 

[khon]

The only scandalous part of the so-called "IRS scandal" is that none of the groups were denied tax exempt status, even though they clearly violate the text of the law, which states that the groups must be "exclusively for the promotion of social welfare", which they are not.

 

[werepossum]

The only scandalous part of the so-called "IRS scandal" is that none of the groups were denied tax exempt status, even though they clearly violate the text of the law, which states that the groups must be "exclusively for the promotion of social welfare", which they are not.

Um, no. Political activity is allowable, it just cannot be their primary function. http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Other-Non-Profits/Social-Welfare-Organizations

To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community (such as by bringing about civic betterment and social improvements). For example, an organization that restricts the use of its facilities to employees of selected corporations and their guests is primarily benefiting a private group rather than the community and, therefore, does not qualify as a section 501(c)(4) organization. Similarly, an organization formed to represent member-tenants of an apartment complex does not qualify, because its activities benefit the member-tenants and not all tenants in the community, while an organization formed to promote the legal rights of all tenants in a particular community may qualify under section 501(c)(4) as a social welfare organization. An organization is not operated primarily for the promotion of social welfare if its primary activity is operating a social club for the benefit, pleasure or recreation of its members, or is carrying on a business with the general public in a manner similar to organizations operated for profit link].
Seeking legislation germane to the organization's programs is a permissible means of attaining social welfare purposes. Thus, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may further its exempt purposes through lobbying as its primary activity without jeopardizing its exempt status. An organization that has lost its section 501(c)(3) status due to substantial attempts to influence legislation may not thereafter qualify as a section 501(c)(4) organization. In addition, a section 501(c)(4) organization that engages in lobbying may be required to either provide notice to its members regarding the percentage of dues paid that are applicable to lobbying activities or pay a proxy tax. For more information, see Lobbying Issues .
The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity. However, any expenditure it makes for political activities may be subject to tax under section 527(f). For further information regarding political and lobbying activities of section 501(c) organizations, see Election Year Issues, Political Campaign and Lobbying Activities of IRC 501(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) Organizations, and Revenue Ruling 2004-6.

But thanks for playing "Things that aren't proggie should not be allowed."

Interestingly, since government has to be non-judgemental on what qualifies as social welfare, 501(C)(4) organizations often work opposite sides of the same issue, such as one campaigning for legalization of gay marriage and another campaigning against legalization of gay marriage.

 

[khon]

Um, no. Political activity is allowable, it just cannot be their primary function. http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Other-Non-Profits/Social-Welfare-Organizations


But thanks for playing "Things that aren't proggie should not be allowed."

Interestingly, since government has to be non-judgemental on what qualifies as social welfare, 501(C)(4) organizations often work opposite sides of the same issue, such as one campaigning for legalization of gay marriage and another campaigning against legalization of gay marriage.

The text of the law says "exclusively", but even if you go with the lower standard of "primarily" most of these groups would still fail, and should therefore not be granted tax exempt status.

This isn't a liberal vs conservative issue, almost all of these groups should be rejected regardless of their political ideology.

 

[Thebobo]

Hmm..No one's ever heard of Watergate?
Yeah..Nixon was impeached for that.
and he was a repooblican.

If this goes on unchecked,they owe him an apology.

Nixon resigned before he was impeached.

​

 

[boomerang]

nm

 

[Bowfinger]

Yes, you quoted me verbatim. I wasn't dodging and weaving and waving my hands, your challenge made absolutely no sense because what I posted is the administration position - that only 32% of the challenged groups are conservative. You're demanding that I post "a credible source" - I quoted the fucking IRS report. Again, this is BEST CASE for the administration, which is why I made the point that although this is the claim, no backup has been provided to show that it is only 32%.

Are you honestly this stupid? Are you truly unable to read what you quote? This isn't semantics, nor is it an allegation. It's the official report, and again, this is the BEST CASE for the administration, showing that only a minority of groups targeted were conservative. The absolute minimum number is 32% due to the overall number and the groups already identified; you're challenging me on a number that could only get worse for the administration. If I was wrong, the malfeasance would be worse, not less, with MORE conservative groups out of the same overall number. Sheesh.

If there's someone here who is fluent in moron and can explain this to Bowfinger in a way he can understand, I'd be much obliged.

Wow! I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are one profoundly confused person. It would probably help if you stopped listening to Fox and its ilk, and actually learned to read and think for yourself. This has been explained many times before here. I even addressed it directly in this thread, responding to you about your ridiculous claim:

"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."
​

Can you comprehend those words? Perhaps you can find "someone fluent in moron" to explain it to you.

The TIGTA (IG) report does NOT state that there were 96 conservative groups at most. You have that 100% backwards. There were a minimum of 96 conservative groups in the set of applications pulled for additional scrutiny. Those 96 were picked because they had "Tea Party" in their names, or one of the other keywords on the single BOLO list the IG included in his investigation.

The other 201 groups were selected using other techniques. We don't know how they were selected because the IG report doesn't explain. The IG did state, however, that the majority of the groups warranted additional scrutiny due to potential political activity. In other words, the majority were political groups. We do not know the political mix of those groups because, as has been pointed out again and again and again, the IG stated that making such subjective assessments would compromise his role as an objective fact finder. He could identify the 96 because he used an objective criterion: did each group's name match a phrase on the "Tea Party" BOLO. That's it, black and white.

The other 201 groups are presumably some mix of conservative and liberal. Many wing-nut sources insist they were all, or at least almost all conservative groups (based on nothing but their emotional biases). To the best of my knowledge, nobody in the "Obama administration" -- including the IRS -- has offered any information about the political mix of those groups. Therefore, if you based this:

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

on that IG report, you are absolutely and unarguably wrong. You have been badly duped about what that report states.

 

[Bowfinger]

I don't know how you could have gotten that from what he wrote. He's saying the report was so hackishly and shoddily written that it contradicts itself internally.

Exactly, thanks. And I have no idea what Washington Post article he's talking about. I didn't cite one.

 

[Bowfinger]

The text of the law says "exclusively", but even if you go with the lower standard of "primarily" most of these groups would still fail, and should therefore not be granted tax exempt status.

This isn't a liberal vs conservative issue, almost all of these groups should be rejected regardless of their political ideology.

This. In fact, some have speculated that this is much of the reason the right continues to hammer this "scandal", to keep the IRS under fire so it does not attempt to enforce that law. The wing-nuts want their anonymous, dirty money groups.

 

[TerryMathews]

This. In fact, some have speculated that this is much of the reason the right continues to hammer this "scandal", to keep the IRS under fire so it does not attempt to enforce that law. The wing-nuts want their anonymous, dirt money groups.

Can't be universally true. I think we need to get money out of elections, on both sides and yet I still think this is a case of disparate impact.

 

[PokerGuy]

This. In fact, some have speculated that this is much of the reason the right continues to hammer this "scandal", to keep the IRS under fire so it does not attempt to enforce that law. The wing-nuts want their anonymous, dirt money groups.

So, you are fine with the IRS targeting groups based on political affiliation. Be sure to remember that when it's some group you support getting hammered by some government agency for having a different viewpoint than the current regime.

Sickening how people defend this stuff just because it's their team.

 

[PokerGuy]

The only scandalous part of the so-called "IRS scandal" is that none of the groups were denied tax exempt status, even though they clearly violate the text of the law, which states that the groups must be "exclusively for the promotion of social welfare", which they are not.

That's not the point. Whether the groups were denied tax exempt status or not isn't the issue. If they were all denied such status based on the law, I'd have no problem -- I have a problem with selectively applying more scrutiny to groups based on political considerations. That's a problem.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That's not the point. Whether the groups were denied tax exempt status or not isn't the issue. If they were all denied such status based on the law, I'd have no problem -- I have a problem with selectively applying more scrutiny to groups based on political considerations. That's a problem.

Surely you know that's not the real problem... the real problem is that "the wing-nuts want their anonymous, dirt money groups". Everybody knows this.

 

[Bowfinger]

So, you are fine with the IRS targeting groups based on political affiliation. Be sure to remember that when it's some group you support getting hammered by some government agency for having a different viewpoint than the current regime.

Sickening how people defend this stuff just because it's their team.

Oh FFS, no. One of the problems with this place is people jump into the conversation late and make bad presumptions, so we have to keep repeating the same stuff over and over. I said from the very beginning that partisan targeting is absolutely unacceptable, and I believe pretty much everyone agrees with this. Targeting based on political activity, on the other hand, is good because that is enforcing the law.

 

[Bowfinger]

Surely you know that's not the real problem... the real problem is that "the wing-nuts want their anonymous, dirt money groups". Everybody knows this.

Am I wrong? Which side is aggressively defending this practice of allowing deep pockets to make anonymous contributions to these faux social-welfare non-profits? Be honest.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Am I wrong? Which side is aggressively defending this practice of allowing deep pockets to make anonymous contributions to these faux social-welfare non-profits? Be honest.

Yes...you're wrong. Your statement was way over the top. Just saying.

 

[Jhhnn]

Can't be universally true. I think we need to get money out of elections, on both sides and yet I still think this is a case of disparate impact.

Perhaps that's because of disparate exploitation of loopholes in existing statutes & enforcement. There is no known "liberal" parallel to this organizational structure-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...7cfd9a-719b-11e3-9389-09ef9944065e_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...4451a8-74b5-11e3-8b3f-b1666705ca3b_story.html

I suspect that the filings for tax exempt status were also very lopsided, with the funders of the right wing attempting to establish false bonafides as grassroots rather than astroturf. That's much easier with anonymous funding, and the whole point of the exercise.

 

[hal2kilo]

The text of the law says "exclusively", but even if you go with the lower standard of "primarily" most of these groups would still fail, and should therefore not be granted tax exempt status.

This isn't a liberal vs conservative issue, almost all of these groups should be rejected regardless of their political ideology.

Congress created this mess. Social welfare my ass. And this is exactly what should be expected to happen when you "give them an inch" they will surely make it a mile.

I'm sure when the Repugs get back in charge this would never happen on their watch.

Stupid laws get stupid results.

 

[TerryMathews]

Congress created this mess. Social welfare my ass. And this is exactly what should be expected to happen when you "give them an inch" they will surely make it a mile.

I'm sure when the Repugs get back in charge this would never happen on their watch.

Stupid laws get stupid results.

Since the IRS is interpreting the law in a different way than was written (primarily vs exclusively), isn't it more accurate to say that the Executive branch created this mess?

 

[Cozarkian]

I don't know how you could have gotten that from what he wrote. He's saying the report was so hackishly and shoddily written that it contradicts itself internally.

Okay, I'll explain. First, he relies on a Washington Post article, which itself relies on politically-motivated statements as evidence of targeting. In response, I provided a report that investigated the underlying statements and found them to be misleading.

Next, he states the report isn't reliable because it was a politically-motivated report based on Darrel Issa's lies. He has completely ignored the fact that the original comments Darrel Issa was investigating were equally politically-motivated, if not moreso, and should be subjected to the same scrutiny as potential lies as Issa's comments.

Finally, he attempts to fabricate a claim of contradiction to undermine the report. The report states that Democrats made misleading statements that liberal groups were targeted. The report doesn't deny a few liberal groups were selected, the report states that Democrats are using the very small number of liberal groups that were selected to make misleading statements about the nature and extent of the program. As evidence, the report explains that even those select few liberal groups that were selected were given different treatment. Having a few liberal groups that were "caught and released" does not qualify as targeting under any rational interpretation, any more than it is fair to claim tuna fisherman target dolphin because a few might be caught in their net.

The report also attacks the second point raised by Democrats, that terms like progressive were on the BOLO list. Based on congressional testimony, those terms may (or may not) have been on the original BOLO , but the people implementing the program only recall the program targeting Tea Party, Patriot and 9/12 groups.

In sum, he is refusing to acknowledge the supporting evidence for arguments made by a person he doesn't like, on grounds of bias, while accepting statements made by biased persons he does like without requiring supporting evidence for those statements and while ignoring the evidence that refutes those statements.

 

[Cozarkian]

I said from the very beginning that partisan targeting is absolutely unacceptable, and I believe pretty much everyone agrees with this. Targeting based on political activity, on the other hand, is good because that is enforcing the law.

What about targeting purportedly based on political activity, which in practice was deliberately implemented in a partisan manner?