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

[fskimospy]

To each his own but personally, I have no interest whatsoever in what he has to say.

lol. This nutcase here is a perfect example of the right wing media bubble. It's not just that he doesn't happen to run across contrary information or opinions, he's actively attempting to avoid things that threaten the world he's made in his head.

 

[Bowfinger]

This issue will be corrected in the November mid-terms. When the public goes basically silent on an issue as big as this it's because they've made their minds up on the issue and have decided on a course of action. In this case it's removing from power those that condone the actions of the IRS through either outright defense, or through their silence.

When you've got Democrats on the investigative committee asking Koskinen not even softball questions but apologizing for questions he's being asked by Republicans because Koskinen is a big donor to Democrats, the public understands what is going on and they will take action. They took action in 2010 and 2014 will be no different.

I present Exhibit A, a textbook example of a brainwashed wing-nut. He accepts on faith everything the Foxes and Breitbarts of the nutter bubble feed him, without a hint of critical thought.

 

[xBiffx]

lol. This nutcase here is a perfect example of the right wing media bubble. It's not just that he doesn't happen to run across contrary information or opinions, he's actively attempting to avoid things that threaten the world he's made in his head.

I think you just described yourself in a nutshell. Only replace this topic with AGW. Pretty fascinating isn't it.

 

[fskimospy]

I think you just described yourself in a nutshell. Only replace this topic with AGW. Pretty fascinating isn't it.

The idea that you would attempt to equate accepting the overwhelming, objective, scientific evidence behind AGW with someone who only reads right wing nutter sites says more about you than it ever would about me.

 

[xBiffx]

The idea that you would attempt to equate accepting the overwhelming, objective, scientific evidence behind AGW with someone who only reads right wing nutter sites says more about you than it ever would about me.

I figured you'd be able to vault your way out. At least we all got to see the spectacle. I care not but I did love the irony of your statement.

 

[TerryMathews]

I found it in the Washington Post. Wing-nut victim card played and trumped yet again. Surprise.

It occurs to me that you guys play the victim card just like many leftists play the race card. It doesn't matter how valid the criticism may be, if it is against the right in some way it is immediately trumpeted as further proof of how persecuted you are. Grow a pair.

TIL the Washington Post is a network.

 

[TerryMathews]

What I'm confused by is why you would take the statements of the plaintiff in a lawsuit as fact when they have presented no evidence to back them up. By the same logic, every defendant in a criminal trial is innocent because their lawyer said so. If that turned out to be true that would certainly be a problem, but again, why you would simply believe something because it fits the narrative you want is troubling.

Nice attempt to keep up the myth of media bias, btw. I don't know if you saw earlier, but PokerGuy tried the same thing and got crushed immediately by reality.

By itself, no. Combined with what has come out of TIGTA, the National Archivist, Lerner herself apologizing and then taking the 5th it becomes more compelling.

This is more akain to finding a room full of Mafioso with a duffel bag full of cash and guns saying "We didn't rob nobody."

 

[Bowfinger]

TIL the Washington Post is a network.

You might have a point if American Thinker and the WSJ are networks, because those are the sources involved in this specific tangent. Since they are not, however, your reply above is merely a dishonest --and truly lame -- attempt to dodge the fact that you were caught in another error. Better luck next victim card.

 

[TerryMathews]

You might have a point if American Thinker and the WSJ are networks, because those are the sources involved in this specific tangent. Since they are not, however, your reply above is merely a dishonest --and truly lame -- attempt to dodge the fact that you were caught in another error. Better luck next victim card.

No, I meant exactly what I said and how I said it.

I watch the news in the morning. I listen to talk radio on the drive in to work.

I do not start checking the "major" newspaper sites for verifications that stories ran there as well. While I do have sporadic time throughout the day to chime in on stories that interest me I dont have enough time to do the kind of deep research you and Eskimo pie evidently have the time to do.

Oops, was my victim card showing again?

404 dishonesty not found. Par for the course for you however. I'm starting to think you're subscribing early to the 2016 Democratic platform: Hate-um conservatives!

 

[fskimospy]

By itself, no. Combined with what has come out of TIGTA, the National Archivist, Lerner herself apologizing and then taking the 5th it becomes more compelling.

This is more akain to finding a room full of Mafioso with a duffel bag full of cash and guns saying "We didn't rob nobody."

I don't think it's more akin to that at all, as your example involves evidence that a crime was committed when the whole point here is that these people have presented exactly zero pieces of evidence.

From what I read, basically this allegation comes from a plaintiff's attorney who appears to be acknowledging that they have no evidence such a statement was ever made. (they claim it was communicated to them verbally and I saw no evidence of any recording) I honestly can't think of a flimsier basis for asserting something than that.

 

[TerryMathews]

I don't think it's more akin to that at all, as your example involves evidence that a crime was committed when the whole point here is that these people have presented exactly zero pieces of evidence.

From what I read, basically this allegation comes from a plaintiff's attorney who appears to be acknowledging that they have no evidence such a statement was ever made. (they claim it was communicated to them verbally and I saw no evidence of any recording) I honestly can't think of a flimsier basis for asserting something than that.

Did you also notice that in all of the IRS's arguments they never claimed that the Z-street's allegations were false?

 

[fskimospy]

Did you also notice that in all of the IRS's arguments they never claimed that the Z-street's allegations were false?

That's because they aren't at that part of the trial yet. You don't even bother with the evidence if you can get someone's suit dismissed on various procedural grounds.

 

[TerryMathews]

That's because they aren't at that part of the trial yet. You don't even bother with the evidence if you can get someone's suit dismissed on various procedural grounds.

Strongly disagree. The case would've died on the vine if they asserted that there was not a special review area that this application was shuffled to.

 

[fskimospy]

Strongly disagree. The case would've died on the vine if they asserted that there was not a special review area that this application was shuffled to.

I'm not sure how you can strongly disagree with that as it's a simple statement of fact. The IRS has not specifically disputed the factual basis of those claims because they aren't at that part of the trial yet.

EDIT: It seems like as you encounter more opposing views on this allegation that you are beginning to believe it more strongly. That doesn't make any sense. It is, and remains, a statement from a plaintiffs attorney with zero supporting evidence. That's not something that a reasonable person should readily believe for obvious reasons.

 

[TerryMathews]

I'm not sure how you can strongly disagree with that as it's a simple statement of fact. The IRS has not specifically disputed the factual basis of those claims because they aren't at that part of the trial yet.

EDIT: It seems like as you encounter more opposing views on this allegation that you are beginning to believe it more strongly. That doesn't make any sense. It is, and remains, a statement from a plaintiffs attorney with zero supporting evidence. That's not something that a reasonable person should readily believe for obvious reasons.

"I disagree with your legal analysis of the situation".

I don't understand what part of that is confusing to you.

To your edit: there is a ton of supporting evidence. As I stated in an earlier post. As I said earlier this is not simply an unsubstantiated allegation.

It is intellectually dishonest of you to argue this as though this case is happening in a vacuum.

 

[Bowfinger]

No, I meant exactly what I said and how I said it.

I watch the news in the morning. I listen to talk radio on the drive in to work.

I do not start checking the "major" newspaper sites for verifications that stories ran there as well. While I do have sporadic time throughout the day to chime in on stories that interest me I dont have enough time to do the kind of deep research you and Eskimo pie evidently have the time to do.

Oops, was my victim card showing again?

404 dishonesty not found. Par for the course for you however. I'm starting to think you're subscribing early to the 2016 Democratic platform: Hate-um conservatives!

Doubling down, I see. You really cannot admit you were wrong, can you?

Here is your quote:

"Well, I'm sure he would've supplied a story from someone other than the "nutter media" if in fact any other network elected to carry the story."
​

Note the bolded. It means two things. First, what you watch in the morning is irrelevant because you were talking about him. Second, that you mistakenly conflated his two sources with networks, then tried to move the goal posts when I pointed out the Washington Post also ran the story (as did a lot of mainstream press, based on the Google hits I saw).

Face it, it's time to stop digging, take your lumps, and move on.

 

[Bowfinger]

That's because they aren't at that part of the trial yet. You don't even bother with the evidence if you can get someone's suit dismissed on various procedural grounds.

That's exactly right. The IRS response was focused solely on three procedural issues. They are specifically listed and rebuffed in the ruling.

 

[fskimospy]

"I disagree with your legal analysis of the situation".

I don't understand what part of that is confusing to you.

On what basis are you disagreeing with it? From my understanding these are the basic arguments you can make in a motion to dismiss before discovery:

1.) Lack of subject matter or personal jurisdiction
2.) Wrong venue
3.) Insufficient process
4.) Failure to state a claim that the court can address
5.) Lack of ability to sue
6.) An already pending action
7.) Documentary evidence

Documentary evidence, by the way, means a written fact that is indisputable by any party, which in no way applies to this case.

I see nothing in there that allows for a motion to dismiss before discovery because you think the other party's argument is wrong.

To your edit: there is a ton of supporting evidence. As I stated in an earlier post. As I said earlier this is not simply an unsubstantiated allegation.

It is intellectually dishonest of you to argue this as though this case is happening in a vacuum.

So far you have not provided any supporting evidence. What evidence is there?

 

[TerryMathews]

On what basis are you disagreeing with it? From my understanding these are the basic arguments you can make in a motion to dismiss before discovery:

1.) Lack of subject matter or personal jurisdiction
2.) Wrong venue
3.) Insufficient process
4.) Failure to state a claim that the court can address
5.) Lack of ability to sue
6.) An already pending action
7.) Documentary evidence

Documentary evidence, by the way, means a written fact that is indisputable by any party, which in no way applies to this case.

I see nothing in there that allows for a motion to dismiss before discovery because you think the other party's argument is wrong.



So far you have not provided any supporting evidence. What evidence is there?

From Jackson's decision:

" The only matter at issue in the instant lawsuit is whether, in addition to evaluating Z Street’s activities as it would any other organization’s, the IRS may constitutionally apply a more stringent standard of review that is allegedly reserved for organizations whose activities relate to the promotion of Israel."

Stipulating that the IRS does not and cannot apply a more stringent standard would remove Z-street's standing.

Evidence? Everything that has happened since Lerner's apology. These events do not occur in a vacuum.

 

[TerryMathews]

That's exactly right. The IRS response was focused solely on three procedural issues. They are specifically listed and rebuffed in the ruling.

But the IRS's entire argument is centered around the concept that they are entitled to apply a more stringent standard arbitrarily. QED, in this case they did.

 

[fskimospy]

From Jackson's decision:

" The only matter at issue in the instant lawsuit is whether, in addition to evaluating Z Street’s activities as it would any other organization’s, the IRS may constitutionally apply a more stringent standard of review that is allegedly reserved for organizations whose activities relate to the promotion of Israel."

Stipulating that the IRS does not and cannot apply a more stringent standard would remove Z-street's standing.

Think this through logically. You're saying that if the dependent in a lawsuit didn't commit the action that the plaintiff alleges that would remove their ability to sue. No shit. How would the irs go about proving that it doesn't do that? By providing evidence that it didn't? Does the plaintiff get to rebut this evidence in their filing? If not, then of course lawsuits would always be immediately dismissed. If they do, you just moved the trial portion of the case to a time before discovery happened. That makes no sense.

Does that clear things up?

So seriously, it appears you have no basis for this argument.

 

[fskimospy]

But the IRS's entire argument is centered around the concept that they are entitled to apply a more stringent standard arbitrarily. QED, in this case they did.

This is simply not how motions to dismiss work. When you are making a motion to dismiss it is required that all parties assume that everything present in the plaintiff's complaint to be 100% true. You are legally not allowed to dispute their claims, so your contention that because they didn't dispute the claims they did them makes literally zero sense.

 

[Bowfinger]

But the IRS's entire argument is centered around the concept that they are entitled to apply a more stringent standard arbitrarily. QED, in this case they did.

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to argue here. How and where is the IRS arguing they are entitled to apply a more stringent standard arbitrarily? How does this apply to the Z Street case? How does it apply to the 501(c)(4) political targeting case? I am missing your point.

 

[werepossum]

*sigh*

Evidently you're having another of your frequent senior moments. Here, allow me:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/section/learning/general/onthisday/big/1020_big.gif

The story that infuriated the public and Congress, and which made both parties begin discussing impeachment the following day. You'll notice the IRS isn't mentioned.

So is your position that the Articles of Impeachment didn't happen because they aren't mentioned in this one New York Times headline, or simply that we should pretend that the Articles of Impeachment didn't happen because they aren't mentioned in this one New York Times headline?

Guess we've covered exactly why this is worse than watergate by this administration.

Except in this case Obama had the evidence destroyed against the law. We got him. Impeach.

That may be a reach. We know this was based in D.C. and we know some people in his administration were involved at least fairly late in the game, but we don't (yet) know that Obama was involved. This may be like the BATFE under Carter - they have a kindred soul in charge, so they take that opportunity to go rogue knowing he's got their backs. One could say much the same of the Iran-Contra arms smuggling group under Reagan. Obama's certainly protecting them now, but that may be because he knows the Pubbies will blame him regardless of involvement if the investigation isn't killed. That's what drew Nixon in, after all.

Please stop it with the fox. I cut the cord down to a string months ago and even then didn't watch much of anything on Fox when I did have it. And for your info I got my info about the seven hard drives crashing from your post #967. Is the seven hard drive crashes nationwide? The IRS employs some 90,000 people so that would be a good ratio.

Seven hard drives from among those people whose records are under subpoena.

 

[werepossum]

I just cant believe this is how they believe records should be retained. The costs to retain email in an archive is cheaper than printing and storing.

/facepalm

Yeah, but it's a lot easier to "lose" printed documents at need.

IRS Prematurely ‘Retired’ Data Storage Devices

Oops.

Hmm.

Koskinen confirmed that IRS employees’ emails during this period were saved on six-month backup tapes. But Koskinen could not explain why the IRS did not inspect Lerner’s backup tape before it was erased. ”It would be difficult, but I don’t know why they didn’t do it,” Koskinen said. “I have no idea or indication that they did."

Two possibilities here. One is that Lerner's hard drive honestly did crash ten days after the Pubbies sent a letter indicating that they had learned of the discriminatory practices and she really really really wanted to recover her emails, just not badly enough to get them from the device purchased and maintained to save those emails. The other is that Lerner's hard drive needed to crash ten days after the Pubbies sent a letter indicating that they had learned of the discriminatory practices, so going to the back-up tape would have been at cross-purposes.

The sleeper case that could bust open the IRS scandals

It's been said that there is more than one way to skin a cat. The IRS may just be skinning itself.

I don't see that happening. The IRS is blatantly lying and destroying evidence with at least the passive support of the Obama administration, as witnessed by the total lack of interest in prosecuting the felon who leaked the information in question. They know they are beyond the law. Why then would they turn over anything that might be a smoking gun simply because some pissant judge so ruled? The BATFE under Carter simply ignored dozens of judicial rulings and orders, and the IRS under Obama is just as unlawful.