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

[ivwshane]

Let me know in here where she admits to targeting left wing groups.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7bejjpWH4I&feature=player_detailpage#t=137

Lol! This investigation has been going on forever and if you think one persons testimony is all that should be listened to you are a lot dumber than I thought.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...brazile-no-conspiracy-here-irs-targeted-libe/

 

[Matt1970]

Lol! This investigation has been going on forever and if you think one persons testimony is all that should be listened to you are a lot dumber than I thought.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...brazile-no-conspiracy-here-irs-targeted-libe/

From your link:

Yes, some progressive groups did have their tax-exempt status applications flagged as the IRS reviewed whether nonprofit groups were engaging in political activities.

But it wasn’t to the same degree as tea party and other conservative groups, nor did it result in the same actions. The list targeting tea party groups resulted in delayed processing that in some cases lasted almost three years and inquiries into their donors. Further, the inspector general found tea party groups were systematically singled out as part of an office-wide effort, while progressive groups were not.

 

[ivwshane]

From your link:

Yes, some progressive groups did have their tax-exempt status applications flagged as the IRS reviewed whether nonprofit groups were engaging in political activities.

But it wasn’t to the same degree as tea party and other conservative groups, nor did it result in the same actions. The list targeting tea party groups resulted in delayed processing that in some cases lasted almost three years and inquiries into their donors. Further, the inspector general found tea party groups were systematically singled out as part of an office-wide effort, while progressive groups were not.

Are you back peddling now? Progressive groups were indeed targeted just like right wing groups using the same method, aka bolo lists. The fact that they were scrutinized more shouldn't be a surprise considering what they were advocating for but that's a whole other question and has nothing to do with the point.

The accusation here is that the IRS targeted conservative political groups because of their conservative politics. The only way to answer that question is to compare how different groups with different politics get treated. The original IRS report -- and the firestorm of media coverage it generated -- talked about how conservative groups were identified in part by keyword search for further scrutiny, without any mention that progressive groups were identified the same way to be looked into further. Right there, that's a giant hole in the central thesis of the reporting.

Btw, did you bother reading the June 24th response?

 

[Matt1970]

Are you back peddling now? Progressive groups were indeed targeted just like right wing groups using the same method, aka bolo lists. The fact that they were scrutinized more shouldn't be a surprise considering what they were advocating for but that's a whole other question and has nothing to do with the point.



Btw, did you bother reading the June 24th response?

The fact that they were scrutinized more is the whole point. What they were advocating for is irrelevant as far as the IRS is concerned.

 

[Bowfinger]

Are you back peddling now? Progressive groups were indeed targeted just like right wing groups using the same method, aka bolo lists. The fact that they were scrutinized more shouldn't be a surprise considering what they were advocating for but that's a whole other question and has nothing to do with the point.

Hey, at least it's progress. Some of his peers are still stuck on the fairytale that only conservative groups were targeted and all liberal groups were quickly approved.

Btw, did you bother reading the June 24th response?

Clearly not, nor did he check any of its links. Some of those conservative groups were openly violating the laws against political campaign activities, and were blatantly lying to the IRS about it. It's not at all unreasonable that they were under intense scrutiny.

Edit: Also, there were many non-conservative groups that reported intrusive IRS scrutiny, just like those conservative groups. The difference is that these non-conservative groups didn't start out with an axe to grind and took the requests in stride. Another difference may be that these non-conservative groups were following the law and had nothing to hide, but that's hard to judge without a complete list of applicants.

 

[Matt1970]

Hey, at least it's progress. Some of his peers are still stuck on the fairytale that only conservative groups were targeted and all liberal groups were quickly approved.

Maybe you two should read this real slow so you fully understand it.

"Yes, some progressive groups did have their tax-exempt status applications flagged as the IRS reviewed whether nonprofit groups were engaging in political activities. But it wasn’t to the same degree as tea party and other conservative groups, nor did it result in the same actions."

Clearly not, nor did he check any of its links. Some of those conservative groups were openly violating the laws against political campaign activities, and were blatantly lying to the IRS about it. It's not at all unreasonable that they were under intense scrutiny.

And I am sure if we searched every house in America we would find lots of law breakers. That's not how things work around here.

 

[Bowfinger]

Maybe you two should read this real slow so you fully understand it.

"Yes, some progressive groups did have their tax-exempt status applications flagged as the IRS reviewed whether nonprofit groups were engaging in political activities. But it wasn’t to the same degree as tea party and other conservative groups, nor did it result in the same actions."

Remove the beam from your eye, Sparky. I read it just fine. What part of "Some of his peers ..." exceeded your reading comprehension? Even more, if you had bothered to read the whole page and its links, you'd have learned that quote wasn't accurate in many cases.

And I am sure if we searched every house in America we would find lots of law breakers. That's not how things work around here.

That was dumb. And wrong. And typical of you. The IRS wasn't searching at random, they were reviewing groups that approached the IRS and applied for a special tax status. The IRS was then examining those groups' activities to see if they complied with the law regarding political activities. Many did not, yet blatantly lied to the IRS about it. That IMO is the real root of this controversy, that a great many conservatives don't want these corrupt money groups to be held to the law.

 

[Matt1970]

Remove the beam from your eye, Sparky. I read it just fine. What part of "Some of his peers ..." exceeded your reading comprehension? Even more, if you had bothered to read the whole page and its links, you'd have learned that quote wasn't accurate in many cases.



That was dumb. And wrong. And typical of you. The IRS wasn't searching at random, they were reviewing groups that approached the IRS and applied for a special tax status. The IRS was then examining those groups' activities to see if they complied with the law regarding political activities. Many did not, yet blatantly lied to the IRS about it. That IMO is the real root of this controversy, that a great many conservatives don't want these corrupt money groups to be held to the law.

Ya it was dumb because it is the exact same thing you did. You are justifying the actions of the IRS by the results it found. You are taking your dishonesty to a whole new level here pal.

 

[Bowfinger]

Ya it was dumb because it is the exact same thing you did. You are justifying the actions of the IRS by the results it found. You are taking your dishonesty to a whole new level here pal.

The results it found when it did its job, dumbass. The IRS is supposed to examine applications to verify eligibility, not just rubber stamp every application they receive. Otherwise, every business and PAC could register as a 501(c)(4). Once again, the problem with your ilk appears to be you want to exempt your party from following the law.

 

[Matt1970]

The results it found when it did its job, dumbass. The IRS is supposed to examine applications to verify eligibility, not just rubber stamp every application they receive. Otherwise, every business and PAC could register as a 501(c)(4). Once again, the problem with your ilk appears to be you want to exempt your party from following the law.

You are such a good minion. You have successfully turned the problem into me and my ilk. I will put you down to have a little something extra on your dinner tray this evening.

 

[Bowfinger]

You are such a good minion. You have successfully turned the problem into me and my ilk. I will put you down to have a little something extra on your dinner tray this evening.

So ... you've got nothing. Yes, the problem is and has consistently been you and your ilk, partisan tools who've desperately twisted, perverted, and often outright invented bogus claim after bogus claim to try to force this relatively modest case of IRS wrongdoing into a MAJOR!!! SCANDAL!!! leading straight to the White House!!! Yes, the IRS used partisan keywords to quickly identify political organizations potentially violating 501(c)(4) laws. Yes, this tactic was wrong. They acknowledged this and Lerner ordered it stopped. Almost everything since has been innuendo, supposition, and lies, not supported by the actual evidence presented. You're fuming because Ivwshane's recent links have poked still more holes in your propaganda campaign.

 

[Matt1970]

So ... you've got nothing. Yes, the problem is and has consistently been you and your ilk, partisan tools who've desperately twisted, perverted, and often outright invented bogus claim after bogus claim to try to force this relatively modest case of IRS wrongdoing into a MAJOR!!! SCANDAL!!! leading straight to the White House!!! Yes, the IRS used partisan keywords to quickly identify political organizations potentially violating 501(c)(4) laws. Yes, this tactic was wrong. They acknowledged this and Lerner ordered it stopped. Almost everything since has been innuendo, supposition, and lies, not supported by the actual evidence presented. You're fuming because Ivwshane's recent links have poked still more holes in your propaganda campaign.

Well, you end up with innuendo, supposition, and lies when conveniently hard drives crash so bad that no info is recoverable (nearly impossible) covering the timeframe that the actions in question where happening. But hey, she ordered it stopped, and you left out that she even apologized for it. I think I like the new society where the only repercussions for your actions are to order it stopped and apologize. I think I will use that to my advantage.

 

[Bowfinger]

Well, you end up with innuendo, supposition, and lies when conveniently hard drives crash so bad that no info is recoverable (nearly impossible) covering the timeframe that the actions in question where happening.

Yawn. Yes, you parrot the talking points well. How convenient that you fixate on the few thousand emails lost while ignoring the million-plus pages of documents, 67,000 Lerner emails, countless other IRS emails, and scores of depositions that have been produced. (And ignoring that those emails were lost almost a year before any of the controversy, lawsuits, and investigations began -- apparently you conspiracy nuts think her evil powers include time travel.) That's the key to maintaining any conspiracy theory: the "proof" is always in some tiny bit of evidence you don't have, not in the mountain of evidence you have.

And no, no matter what the nutter disinformation bubble told you, it is not "nearly impossible" to lose files in a disk crash. If you actually knew anything about hard drives, and especially if you knew anything about compressed files (e.g., mail archives), you'd realize even a few bad sectors can make some files unrecoverable. Other failures, e.g., a head crash or controller failure, will commonly make the entire drive unrecoverable. These failures only become more common as drives age, and according to sworn testimony, the IRS PCs were old.

But hey, she ordered it stopped, and you left out that she even apologized for it.

So? It was wrong to use partisan keywords. "They acknowledged this." Save your semantics innuendo for someone more gullible.

I think I like the new society where the only repercussions for your actions are to order it stopped and apologize. I think I will use that to my advantage.

You're either spectacularly uninformed or deliberately lying. The head of the IRS lost his job. Lerner was effectively pushed into retirement. There are at least five different investigations, including one by the FBI that may lead to criminal charges if any laws were broken. And, the IRS has been bullied into no longer enforcing the anti-politicking laws when reviewing 501(c)(4) applications. "Only repercussions ..." my ass.

 

[Matt1970]

And no, no matter what the nutter disinformation bubble told you, it is not "nearly impossible" to lose files in a disk crash. If you actually knew anything about hard drives, and especially if you knew anything about compressed files (e.g., mail archives), you'd realize even a few bad sectors can make some files unrecoverable. Other failures, e.g., a head crash or controller failure, will commonly make the entire drive unrecoverable. These failures only become more common as drives age, and according to sworn testimony, the IRS PCs were old.

The problem with making shit up as you go along, is you are often wrong. Then you want to make shit up about hard drives and post it on a techie site is laughable. An entire drive being unrecoverable is beyond extremely rare. Even if the controller goes bad, they can take the platters out and get the info off of them. Whether they wanted to go through the hassle is another issue. And yes, I have learned a thing or two about hard drives having been a computer tech for the last 17 years.

 

[Cozarkian]

(And ignoring that those emails were lost almost a year before any of the controversy, lawsuits, and investigations began -- apparently you conspiracy nuts think her evil powers include time travel.)

Oh, are you not aware that Lerner was warned about investigation into improper IRS activity shortly before her hard drive crashed? - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-led-to-the-crash-of-lois-lerners-hard-drive/

You'll like that link because they already tried to spin the letter to make it seem innocuous, by trying argue it was limited to concern over the IRS' arbitrary enforcement of gift tax rules. However, if the author had been honest, he would have mentioned that the letter expresses a deeper concern over improper IRS behavior related to auditing, in general. If fact, it expressly demands the IRS answer the following:

How are tax-exempt organizations generally selected for audit?

An honest answer to the above would have mentioned the use of bolo lists with partisan words and would possibly have opened this investigation back in 2011.

Also, imagine the impact on Lerner. Here you are, running several different programs that abuse IRS power, including arbitrary application of gift tax and improper targeting for audit selection. If you get a letter launching an investigation into the former, wouldn't you be a bit more concerned about making sure there isn't evidence of the latter?

 

[Bowfinger]

Oh, are you not aware that Lerner was warned about investigation into improper IRS activity shortly before her hard drive crashed? - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-led-to-the-crash-of-lois-lerners-hard-drive/

You'll like that link because they already tried to spin the letter to make it seem innocuous, by trying argue it was limited to concern over the IRS' arbitrary enforcement of gift tax rules. However, if the author had been honest, he would have mentioned that the letter expresses a deeper concern over improper IRS behavior related to auditing, in general. If fact, it expressly demands the IRS answer the following:

An honest answer to the above would have mentioned the use of bolo lists with partisan words and would possibly have opened this investigation back in 2011.

Also, imagine the impact on Lerner. Here you are, running several different programs that abuse IRS power, including arbitrary application of gift tax and improper targeting for audit selection. If you get a letter launching an investigation into the former, wouldn't you be a bit more concerned about making sure there isn't evidence of the latter?

Wow! Finally, the conspiracy buffs have their smoking gun!

Except he asked how 501(c)(4)s are selected for audits. The Lerner controversy has nothing to do with audits. It has to do with reviewing applications. Audits happen later, presumably much later, long after those applications are approved. And by the way, Congress routinely demands all sorts of information from federal agencies. The notion that such a relatively innocuous letter would send the IRS into a panic is hilarious.

But thank you for providing the documentation that refutes the allegation that Lerner had almost a year warning of the coming targeting scandal. That letter nicely knocks down that canard.


Edit: Speaking of "if the author had been honest," if you had been honest, you would have admitted that Camp "expressly demands" answers to 17 different questions, and that your fixation on that single question was a Hail Mary attempt to salvage anything that could be twisted to support the RNC narrative. Contrary to your insinuation, your one question, near the end of Camp's list, did not stand out. Indeed, it was different from the other 16 mostly because there was so little emphasis on it. Whereas the other demands usually included fairly detailed elaborations of the information expected, your little tidbit was just that one short question, with no additional qualification or elaboration. So, not only does your point not apply to the application review process, it wasn't even key to the letter.

 

[Bowfinger]

The problem with making shit up as you go along, is you are often wrong. Then you want to make shit up about hard drives and post it on a techie site is laughable. An entire drive being unrecoverable is beyond extremely rare. Even if the controller goes bad, they can take the platters out and get the info off of them. Whether they wanted to go through the hassle is another issue. And yes, I have learned a thing or two about hard drives having been a computer tech for the last 17 years.

I hear lots of huffing and puffing, but you don't offer anything factual (as usual). Replacing a failed controller is sometimes possible, though often not practical on consumer drives. Naturally, you also conveniently ignored the more common scenario of an actual head crash -- frequently totally unrecoverable, and the very common case of bad sectors making specific files unreadable. But that's par for the course for you conspiracy loons.

I'll also point out you ignored everything else I said to zero in on the one nit, one small portion of just one of the points I raised. We can safely assume you've conceded your error on the rest, but lack the integrity to acknowledge it.

 

[cabri]

Maybe they should talk to the technicians that looked at the drive.

They should have the documentation as to who looked at it and what was actually done/tried.

Paper pushers have no understanding of what was done/attempted to be done.

It is very possible that drive would not spin up. Controller failure.
Without instructions for the techs to attempt to "resuscitate"; they just confirm that it is failed and that is all.

 

[ivwshane]

The problem with making shit up as you go along, is you are often wrong. Then you want to make shit up about hard drives and post it on a techie site is laughable. An entire drive being unrecoverable is beyond extremely rare. Even if the controller goes bad, they can take the platters out and get the info off of them. Whether they wanted to go through the hassle is another issue. And yes, I have learned a thing or two about hard drives having been a computer tech for the last 17 years.

Have you ever seen a drive where the head digs onto the platter? You aren't recovering that no matter how much irrelevant personal experience you have.

lol! A computer tech!

 

[Matt1970]

Have you ever seen a drive where the head digs onto the platter? You aren't recovering that no matter how much irrelevant personal experience you have.

lol! A computer tech!

Happens all the time. That still doesn't mean the entire platter and all it's data is totally lost.

 

[Matt1970]

I hear lots of huffing and puffing, but you don't offer anything factual (as usual). Replacing a failed controller is sometimes possible, though often not practical on consumer drives. Naturally, you also conveniently ignored the more common scenario of an actual head crash -- frequently totally unrecoverable, and the very common case of bad sectors making specific files unreadable. But that's par for the course for you conspiracy loons.

I'll also point out you ignored everything else I said to zero in on the one nit, one small portion of just one of the points I raised. We can safely assume you've conceded your error on the rest, but lack the integrity to acknowledge it.

You don't replace the controller. You take the platters out at put them in a special machine. There are companies that specialize in this. A head crash does not leave the entire platter unreadable. You said it yourself but don't even realize it, bad sectors are just one sector of the drive, not the entire drive. But hey, that's the BS line fed to you by the powers that be, so it is now gospel. And I ignore plenty of the theoretical nonsense you spew on a daily basis.

 

[Bowfinger]

Maybe they should talk to the technicians that looked at the drive.

They should have the documentation as to who looked at it and what was actually done/tried.

Paper pushers have no understanding of what was done/attempted to be done.

It is very possible that drive would not spin up. Controller failure.
Without instructions for the techs to attempt to "resuscitate"; they just confirm that it is failed and that is all.

There was a similar comment earlier in the thread, and I agree. It's a sure bet we're never going to get good technical info from Congresscritters talking to executives. I'd like to see a technical explanation directly from the IRS IT specialists involved.

 

[Bowfinger]

You don't replace the controller. You take the platters out at put them in a special machine. There are companies that specialize in this. A head crash does not leave the entire platter unreadable. You said it yourself but don't even realize it, bad sectors are just one sector of the drive, not the entire drive. But hey, that's the BS line fed to you by the powers that be, so it is now gospel. And I ignore plenty of the theoretical nonsense you spew on a daily basis.

Shut up, twit. Nobody claimed the IRS took the drive to a clean room recovery facility. "Unrecoverable" in this context doesn't mean impossible given an unlimited budget and resources. It meant the IRS IT was unable to recover Lerner's files using their normal tools and processes. Her drive just had email and work files, not nuclear launch codes and the secret of eternal life.

Also, re. your other post above, kindly show us where Lerner or the IRS claimed "the entire platter and all it's data is totally lost". Lerner asked IT to recover her files. They were unable to do so, at least in some cases. Your post is another straw man, a phony story you can attack since you cannot refute the facts.

 

[Matt1970]

There was a similar comment earlier in the thread, and I agree. It's a sure bet we're never going to get good technical info from Congresscritters talking to executives. I'd like to see a technical explanation directly from the IRS IT specialists involved.

Oh now you want to see the techie documentation when earlier the word of the IRS about their drives was good enough.

 

[Matt1970]

Shut up, twit. Nobody claimed the IRS took the drive to a clean room recovery facility. "Unrecoverable" in this context doesn't mean impossible given an unlimited budget and resources. It meant the IRS IT was unable to recover Lerner's files using their normal tools and processes. Her drive just had email and work files, not nuclear launch codes and the secret of eternal life.

Also, re. your other post above, kindly show us where Lerner or the IRS claimed "the entire platter and all it's data is totally lost". Lerner asked IT to recover her files. They were unable to do so, at least in some cases. Your post is another straw man, a phony story you can attack since you cannot refute the facts.

Nice goalpost move. Now unrecoverable means not worth the effort. See my previous comment about your dishonesty.