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

[Jhhnn]

There's nobody desperate here, Jhnnn.

You are as fucked as we are, the entire way down.

-John

Perhaps, but I'm not lying about it.

 

[Zorkorist]

Yeah, you are.

You continue to ignore the problems America has, and hope for some magical solution.

-John

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeah, you are.

You continue to ignore the problems America has, and hope for some magical solution.

-John

Take your meds.

 

[mrjminer]

Take your meds.

Why do you consistently advocate for zero or little-to-no accountability policies and responses? That is my question. Perhaps you fear the obvious surface conclusions will be validated? In which case, I also ask: why do you fear that officials are found to be corrupt? It's not like these policies are just being invented and applied to Obama and his appointees unjustly or something; they've been in place for years to prevent and/or investigate instances where the obvious surface conclusion needs validation.

What sense does it make for someone to profess their democratic intentions while simultaneously professing that all of these very non-democratic things should be disregarded and ignored?

 

[Cozarkian]

The people absolutely do not have a right to know the identify of people making political contributions. If you think we should have the right, get a constitutional amendment.

Anonymity is essential to voting, not to any other aspect of democracy.

Why would anonymity be more important for voting than it is for campaigning for a controversial issue? If anything, anonymity is less important for voting than it is for political donations.

 

[Bowfinger]

That was my original point. Miller is specifically denying partisanship in selecting groups to stop processing by arguing that only 70 of 300 groups targeted were Tea Party groups, yet the IRS has stonewalled telling us anything about the other organizations. Again, this is the absolute best case for the administration and you admit it's almost certainly not true.

Given that Obama fired Miller for misleading Congress about this issue, your point is moot. On the bright side, I am glad to see you recognize I am focused on truth, even when that makes things worse for Obama.

As far as Holder's "investigation", that's already in the bag. Obama pre-election: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/obama-looks-to-do-damage-control-on-irs-benghazi-doj-seizures/


Obama after the election: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...-Corruption-In-IRS-Targeting-of-Conservatives

Sounds like another one of your conspiracies. You should see where Stewox gets his tinfoil. Though I suppose even tinfoil won't help when the rube is eager to be played.

Pretending that you are not an ultra-partisan and are simply waiting for the results of the FBI investigation is too big a lie to even be amusing, much as the concept that there even IS an FBI investigation. Holder isn't even pretending to carry out an investigation.

Dude, you need to get your lies straight. A couple of paragraphs up you recognize I'm trying to make things worse for Obama. Now you claim I'm an ultra-partisan. You need to take a break. All that spinning is making you dizzy. Oh, you should also work on your sense of humor. I find it quite amusing to see you accusing others of lying.

 

[MongGrel]

What a Teap anyway ?

Some new offshoot I never heard of ?

 

[Bowfinger]

ProPublica's article: http://www.propublica.org/article/i...ed-tea-party-also-disclosed-confidential-docs


Seems pretty clear that the IRS and proggie groups were working in concert to shut down conservative groups ahead of the election. Before the election, all Democrats were officially horrified; after the election, that's just good government.

Note specifically that one of those applications was Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, which as Bowfinger so helpfully pointed out could not have been picked up in the oh-so-innocent Tea Party BOLO. In fact, one is hard pressed to understand how ANY BOLO could pick up a group with such a name. If on the other hand the IRS was targeting all conservative groups' applications, then anything associated with Karl Rove is a natural choice.
http://www.propublica.org/article/what-karl-roves-dark-money-nonprofit-told-the-irs

You moron, you're conflating two different things. You do understand ProPublica is NOT the IRS, right? ProPublica sent the IRS a list of groups, a "request for the applications for 67 different nonprofits." ProPublica determined the names on that list using whatever criteria ProPublica found noteworthy. That has absolutely zero to do with how the IRS was independently identifying political groups that might be filing false applications.

 

[Bowfinger]

The official administration position is the TIGTA report that shows sixty-eight percent of the targeted groups were not conservative groups. ...

No. It is not their position. It is not what the TIGTA report claims.

As I've pointed out to you again and again, the official administration position (i.e., the TIGTA report) offers not one fricking word about the ideology of the 68% of groups that did NOT have one of the Tea Party keywords in its name. You continue to dishonestly insinuate that "not known" means "not conservative". That is absolutely false.

In fact, the TIGTA report doesn't even state those 32% are conservative. That would require a subjective conclusion, something he explicitly declined to offer. Instead, he offered the objective information that those are the 32% of applications that matched the Tea Party BOLO. We all simply presume they are conservative due to their names. That's another fact I've explained to you several times, once again including way back in post #196.

If you spent less time huffing and puffing and more time learning you wouldn't keep repeating such asinine claims.

Or - and I include this only for completeness - you're arguing that stating that 32% of targeted groups were conservative does not equate to stating or implying that only 32% of targeted groups were conservative. In that case, the TIGTA report would literally mean nothing more than "this is what you caught us doing" as we already knew that. Even so, the only way you could claim anything positive from that report is to assume that only 32% of targeted groups were conservative. Otherwise you're in the same boat as normal people, assuming that all the groups so targeted are conservative unless we see believable evidence to the contrary.

And yet again, I don't give a rat's ass about spinning facts to make the administration look good. I'm sorry that "Just the facts, ma'am" is such an inconceivable concept for you. I think such blind partisanship is a waste of human intellect.

I've said many times I expect most of the groups selected were right-leaning, if only because there were reportedly far more righty applications than lefties. We still don't know for sure, however, because we don't know anything about the other ~200 groups, not even how they were picked. Most "normal people" assume they are a mix of right- and left-wing groups. It's the Fox faithful who assume they're all conservative.

No matter how much righties don't like it, there is nothing wrong with the IRS targeting political groups to assure compliance with restrictions on their activities. That is their job. The question that will determine whether this is actually a scandal is and has always been whether there was partisan intent when targeting political groups. No partisan intent, no scandal. Poor judgment? Yes. Scandal? No.

But that remains to be seen. I'm confident the FBI investigation will make that determination honestly, unlike Issa and his ilk, and unlike all the Obama haters who so desperately need to make it scandal.

Crickets.

 

[fskimospy]

You moron, you're conflating two different things. You do understand ProPublica is NOT the IRS, right? ProPublica sent the IRS a list of groups, a "request for the applications for 67 different nonprofits." ProPublica determined the names on that list using whatever criteria ProPublica found noteworthy. That has absolutely zero to do with how the IRS was independently identifying political groups that might be filing false applications.

You have to remember that this is the guy who claimed regulating something was the same as nationalizing it, and when confronted with evidence showing otherwise declared that liberals had edited wikipedia to trick people.

 

[Bowfinger]

I'm repeating this for Werepossum since he seems to have either not read it or badly misunderstood it.

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 ... were not conservative groups."
​

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

 

[Jhhnn]

Why do you consistently advocate for zero or little-to-no accountability policies and responses? That is my question. Perhaps you fear the obvious surface conclusions will be validated? In which case, I also ask: why do you fear that officials are found to be corrupt? It's not like these policies are just being invented and applied to Obama and his appointees unjustly or something; they've been in place for years to prevent and/or investigate instances where the obvious surface conclusion needs validation.

What sense does it make for someone to profess their democratic intentions while simultaneously professing that all of these very non-democratic things should be disregarded and ignored?

Never attribute to malice that which can be more easily explained by incompetence.

That principle rules out he usual fringe whack conspiracy theories almost entirely.

Pro Publica got the info on teatard groups whose apps were pending rather than accepted?

Once the apps are accepted, they're public information anyway. There was nothing discernible to be gained by "ebil libruhl conspirators" & anybody with enough sense to pour piss out of a boot realizes that. It was merely a mistake.

 

[Jhhnn]

The people absolutely do not have a right to know the identify of people making political contributions. If you think we should have the right, get a constitutional amendment.



Why would anonymity be more important for voting than it is for campaigning for a controversial issue? If anything, anonymity is less important for voting than it is for political donations.

Millions of Americans contribute to political organizations w/o the slightest anonymity, and have for a very long time. The only people who seem to want it are the Wealthy, particularly those whose aims are to astroturf public opinion through a myriad of money laundering schemes.

 

[TerryMathews]

Millions of Americans contribute to political organizations w/o the slightest anonymity, and have for a very long time. The only people who seem to want it are the Wealthy, particularly those whose aims are to astroturf public opinion through a myriad of money laundering schemes.

So the only rights we are entitled to are the ones the majority wants?

Better let the gays know.

 

[mrjminer]

Never attribute to malice that which can be more easily explained by incompetence.

That principle rules out he usual fringe whack conspiracy theories almost entirely.

Pro Publica got the info on teatard groups whose apps were pending rather than accepted?

Once the apps are accepted, they're public information anyway. There was nothing discernible to be gained by "ebil libruhl conspirators" & anybody with enough sense to pour piss out of a boot realizes that. It was merely a mistake.

Good to see you support the investigation. Sorry if I misconstrued your intentions.

 

[Jhhnn]

So the only rights we are entitled to are the ones the majority wants?

Better let the gays know.

Duh-vert!

 

[Jhhnn]

Good to see you support the investigation. Sorry if I misconstrued your intentions.

I would, if there were anything to investigate beyond aspersions, projections, persecution complexes, conspiracy theories & Issa's lies. The fact that HOR Repubs created a select committee tells any rational person that Issa couldn't finish his snipe hunt.

Nothin' there, cowboy, no matter how badly you want there to be. You're fishin' in a dry wash.

 

[mrjminer]

I would, if there were anything to investigate beyond aspersions, projections, persecution complexes, conspiracy theories & Issa's lies. The fact that HOR Repubs created a select committee tells any rational person that Issa couldn't finish his snipe hunt.

Nothin' there, cowboy, no matter how badly you want there to be. You're fishin' in a dry wash.

I don't know about that. People usually don't plead the fifth amendment if they don't have a reason to do so. Of course, that doesn't indicate guilt, it just makes it more difficult to get the relevant information that may or may not indicate guilt.

The IRS probe seems to be lacking overall to make a decisive conclusion as to what has actually happened. So, I think it is a good move that it is being taken out of Holder's hands and put into the hands of someone that is actually going to perform an investigation. I don't think Democrats or Republicans really know WTF is up quite yet, just that it seems something is amiss at the IRS. I think the 250-168 to appoint an investigatory body other than the DOJ signifies this much, at least.

 

[ivwshane]

I don't know about that. People usually don't plead the fifth amendment if they don't have a reason to do so. Of course, that doesn't indicate guilt, it just makes it more difficult to get the relevant information that may or may not indicate guilt.

The IRS probe seems to be lacking overall to make a decisive conclusion as to what has actually happened. So, I think it is a good move that it is being taken out of Holder's hands and put into the hands of someone that is actually going to perform an investigation. I don't think Democrats or Republicans really know WTF is up quite yet, just that it seems something is amiss at the IRS. I think the 250-168 to appoint an investigatory body other than the DOJ signifies this much, at least.

Uh, we know exactly what happened and we have known for quite awhile now.

Back in the 50's congress created a tax exempt option for institutions whose only purpose was to push social issues, it also didnt require those organizations to keep a donor list.

The rest can be found here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyph...eline-of-irs-tax-exempt-organization-scandal/


The issue boils down to this: how is the IRS supposed to follow the law? How are they suppose to ensure an entity is only pushing social issues? Now do it on a budget.

 

[Jhhnn]

The IRS probe seems to be lacking overall to make a decisive conclusion as to what has actually happened.

Which has been entirely intentional on Issa's part. He never had any intention of determining the truth, or he'd have proceeded differently. That's as obvious as sunrise. It's his usual hyper partisan witch hunt, plain and simple, a pitch to the well conditioned conspiracy theorists on the right, a way to keep them emotionally frothed up, distract them from the real issues facing this country.

The select committee is just an extension of the same thing, dragging it out until after the election.

It's just another chapter in the Birther Benghazi fantasy.

 

[mrjminer]

Uh, we know exactly what happened and we have known for quite awhile now.

Back in the 50's congress created a tax exempt option for institutions whose only purpose was to push social issues, it also didnt require those organizations to keep a donor list.

The rest can be found here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyph...eline-of-irs-tax-exempt-organization-scandal/


The issue boils down to this: how is the IRS supposed to follow the law? How are they suppose to ensure an entity is only pushing social issues? Now do it on a budget.

That is not the issue. The issue is why is the IRS apparently going outside the scope of what they are permitted to do and targeting select groups / people based on their political affiliation. We know a lot about the end result of what has happened (or so it does indeed appear), but we don't have the whole picture; it's like having part of a motive, an opportunity based on an incomplete timeline, some witnesses that kind of saw something, and a gun with partial prints from multiple people that may or may not be smoking.

Which has been entirely intentional on Issa's part. He never had any intention of determining the truth, or he'd have proceeded differently. That's as obvious as sunrise. It's his usual hyper partisan witch hunt, plain and simple, a pitch to the well conditioned conspiracy theorists on the right, a way to keep them emotionally frothed up, distract them from the real issues facing this country.

The select committee is just an extension of the same thing, dragging it out until after the election.

It's just another chapter in the Birther Benghazi fantasy.

I guess you should write the House Democrats that also voted for the IRS probe and profess your displeasure with their inability to maintain an ignorant strong party front instead of choosing to get to the bottom of issues. I fail to see how Republicans are dragging out the issues, when a lot of Democrats are stonewalling at every turn. This IS a real issue facing this country.

 

[Bowfinger]

So the only rights we are entitled to are the ones the majority wants?

Better let the gays know.

There is no explicit "right" to anonymously contribute unlimited amounts of money to influence political campaigns. The current situation exists due to laws (Congress can change), IRS regulations interpreting those laws (IRS can change), and questionable court rulings (that may be someday overturned by a less corrupt (IMO) court). The bottom line is even if we stipulate the legal fiction that money is speech, the First Amendment does not mean free speech rights are unlimited. Courts have consistently recognized some restrictions are reasonable.

The real question in my mind is why so many of you are so eager to help a few financial elites, the 0.001%'ers, subvert democracy. Democracy is one man, one vote. One dollar, one vote, on the other hand, is plutocracy.

 

[TerryMathews]

Duh-vert!

The liberal brain defect in all its splendor.

 

[TerryMathews]

There is no explicit "right" to anonymously contribute unlimited amounts of money to influence political campaigns.

Sure there is. Since it is not against the law, it is one of the intrinsic rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

I would also argue that the same right to privacy which protects the discussion to abort a fetus between a woman and her doctor should also protect a donation between two consenting parties.

 

[Bowfinger]

Sure there is. Since it is not against the law, it is one of the intrinsic rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

No. You clearly do not know what "right" means. You are merely stating it is not illegal, which is exactly the point of contention.

I would also argue that the same right to privacy which protects the discussion to abort a fetus between a woman and her doctor should also protect a donation between two consenting parties.

There is also no explicit right to privacy. It has been inferred by the courts from other, enumerated rights. Further, privacy can be reasonably limited, just like other constitutional rights. Oh, and for the record, your argument would also make direct bribery legal (as opposed to the indirect bribery the corrupt court has enabled today).