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

[Newell Steamer]

IRSghazi?

Taxgate?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yes, people with integrity do those kinds of things when they screw up.

Integrity? You mean like throwing a couple low level employees under the bus hoping that it all blows over? Yeah....that's the ticket!

 

[Bowfinger]

Actually, he did. He used the word "targeting", but in the context of the IRS as the revenue collecting arm of the government targeting people based on political affiliation that is abuse.

No, actually he didn't. Targeting and abuse are not at all the same thing. Indeed, the IRS is supposed to target those who are most likely to be violating the law. That is good and proper. They must never target with partisan intent, however. That is wrong. The judge properly recognizes there was IRS targeting -- something not in dispute --but says nothing to support your assertion of abuse. You invented that interpretation based on your purely partisan, propaganda-fueled biases.

The ruling doesn't anger me in the least, the judge didn't rule on the merits of the case or on the conduct of the IRS, he simply can't proceed on this particular case because the plaintiffs don't have standing --- the IRS has (supposedly) stopped targeting conservatives. In fact the ruling actually specifically states that conservatives were "targeted".

I said nothing to the contrary.

I'm not sure which party that would be, I don't adhere or belong to any particular party.

So you say, yet you consistently shill for the RNC. Note how you accepted their talking points as gospel, and parrot them dutifully.

The facts revealed to this point are abundantly clear to anyone outside of those who are OK with the IRS use as a political attack dog (that would be you). To others it is clear, and the bright spotlight has at least somewhat neutered the ability of the IRS to be used that way again for a little bit.

Sorry. Those aren't facts, they are RNC talking points. The facts so far, as reported in two different investigations, is there is no evidence of any partisan intent in the IRS targeting. That Issa and Fox keep telling you otherwise only confirms how dishonest they are. There are other investigations still underway, and perhaps they will uncover new evidence, but that's speculation. The facts are what they are, and they refute your stories.

 

[Bowfinger]

Integrity? You mean like throwing a couple low level employees under the bus hoping that it all blows over? Yeah....that's the ticket!

Lame. You're better than that. Don't stoop to that level.

 

[OutHouse]

people with integrity do those kinds of things when they screw up.

Nixon was the last US President with integrity.

 

[xBiffx]

Learn to read, you half-witted twit (or maybe more accurately, quit your lying). I did not say any of the things you insinuate I said. I just provided an update and quoted the article. That you cannot abide this or address it honestly only reinforces your role as a failbot.

You are trying to justify and give legitimacy to the IRS's actions here. You brought a story about a ruling to continue that rant. I'd say you are guilty of exactly what I said.

 

[ivwshane]

You are trying to justify and give legitimacy to the IRS's actions here. You brought a story about a ruling to continue that rant. I'd say you are guilty of exactly what I said.

Please point to the justification he used and where he legitimized the IRS's action.

 

[lopri]

I just want to point out that some of the people who are outraged in this thread often evince the views that;

1) one should not be afraid of (police, or in this case IRS) search if she or he has nothing to hide, and
2) if you perform any conduct, however petty, that can be construed as disobedient to the law and the authority (e.g. police) you deserve to be shot to death in daylight.

Convenient hypocrisy (although it probably has more to do with short-term memory) is American conservatives' enduring nature. I personally think IRS' investigation should not be politically motivated.

 

[xBiffx]

I just want to point out that some of the people who are outraged in this thread often evince the views that;

1) one should not be afraid of (police, or in this case IRS) search if she or he has nothing to hide, and
2) if you perform any conduct, however petty, that can be construed as disobedient to the law and the authority (e.g. police) you deserve to be shot to death in daylight.

Convenient hypocrisy (although it probably has more to do with short-term memory) is American conservatives' enduring nature. I personally think IRS' investigation should not be politically motivated.

Cute. Especially the part where the IRS and the police are equivalent.

Also, where's the outrage you speak of?

 

[First]

Another conservative lawsuit gets tossed by well educated federal judges.

This shit is shocking!

 

[lopri]

Cute. Especially the part where the IRS and the police are equivalent.

Do you have anything substantive to say? Do you not think police investigation can be politically (or worse) motivated, just as IRS investigation can be? What distinction would you make that will justify and elevate an abuse by the police but not an abuse by the IRS?

Or do you believe abuse by police is OK but abuse by IRS is not? How about the rest of agency that can perform similar functions (search and seizure)? Do you determine the acceptability of search and seizure on agency-by-agency basis? If so, why don't you share which ones, as well as your reasons.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Lame. You're better than that. Don't stoop to that level.

And what level is that? A level where one believes that the IRS lost all integrity and credibility on this matter when they bald-face lied from the get-go?

 

[xBiffx]

Do you have anything substantive to say?

Do you?

Do you not think police investigation can be politically (or worse) motivated, just as IRS investigation can be? What distinction would you make that will justify and elevate an abuse by the police but not an abuse by the IRS?

Or do you believe abuse by police is OK but abuse by IRS is not? How so?

Why do you think I, or others here are okay with police abusing an investigation? That's your first problem.

 

[lopri]

I don't have a problem. I am thoroughly enjoying what I suspected (Conservative ignorance) turning out to be true as we speak.

 

[xBiffx]

I don't have a problem. I am thoroughly enjoying what I suspected (Conservative ignorance) turning out to be true as we speak.

ROFL. Guess this qualifies as "something substantive" in your book.

 

[Knowing]

In 2012 I took an education credit that I guess I wasn't eligible for (who can read the whole tax code, am I right?) and the IRS told me I was on the hook for $2500 plus interest. One of the drives in the RAID in my laptop failed Friday and my domain controller disappeared from Hyper-V earlier last week.

I totally should have blamed the hardware and not paid.

(even though I'm working on a shoestring budget and 3 generation old hardware [server] all of my data survived)

 

[Fern]

And now we know:

Tea Party loses court battle over targeting to IRS

WASHINGTON -- A federal court dismissed two lawsuits against the Internal Revenue Service Thursday, ruling that the tax agency is no longer targeting conservative tax-exempt groups for greater scrutiny.

"Unless an actual, ongoing controversy exists in this case, this court is without power to decide it," U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton ruled, dismissing one lawsuit brought by True the Vote, a conservative vote-monitoring organization.

True the Vote, an offshoot of the Tea Party-affiliated King Street Patriots, had its application as a social welfare group help up because the IRS suspected it was engaging in direct political election campaigning, which is forbidden under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code. IRS agents found that its web site contained "Democratic attacks and Republican/conservative response," according to confidential IRS documents obtained by USA TODAY. ...

I find the third paragraph especially interesting. It highlights what this targeting was really about, that many of these political 501(c)(4)s submitted fraudulent applications because their focus was politicking, NOT social welfare as required.

That's not what the article says, that's your own (highly spun) personal interpretation.

First of all, the IRS is not supposed to act on something so flimsy as "suspicions".

Secondly, and I'll just quote your article on this point:

The IRS categorized the groups as engaging in several advocacy-related activities that could have barred them from tax-exempt status, such as lobbying and "propaganda."

But the word "propaganda" doesn't appear in section 501(c)(4), which governs the social welfare status that most Tea Party groups were applying for, said John Colombo, a law professor at the University of Illinois. Instead, it appears in section 501(c)(3), which governs public charities.

"There would be no reason I would think to flag them if it's for a 501(c)(4) status," Colombo said. "That's very odd to me."

(John Colombo is a law professor at the University of Illinois.)

I.e., what the IRS "suspects" them of doing isn't against the rules for a 501(c)(4).

Then there's this:

Five groups were flagged as having "anti-Obama" materials in their applications or on their websites.

For instance, the IRS said the website of the Patriots of Charleston contains "negative Obama commentary." Though the IRS didn't cite examples,

Hello, North Korea?

Now we can't say negative things about "Dear leader"?

Were any groups/websites flagged for saying positive things about Obama? If not, why not?

------------------------

As we have seen in this thread the issue for the left , and IRS supporters in this case, is as stated below:

Campaign-finance watchdogs say the IRS scrutiny came out of a justified effort to police "dark money" in politics. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that corporations and unions — and even non-profit groups — could engage in independent political advertising, social welfare groups became a vehicle for funneling undisclosed cash into the election system.

The law, as interpreted by the courts, is pretty clear. That some don't like it and are trying to use the IRS to change the law is wrong. We have proper ways of doing that and using an executive agency isn't one of them. Don't like the law? Have Congress change it.

BTW: I'm not advocating for current law nor advocating changing it. I'm concerned with the misuse of the process.

Here's an example:

A lawyer in the IRS Exempt Organizations Technical Unit in Washington wrote the Idaho group had "No significant amount of clear campaign intervention; however little issue advocacy or educational; significant inflammatory language, highly emotional language, little to no educational information on issues."

So, the IRS lawyer found no misconduct (no "campaign intervention") yet renders the highly subjective opinion that their educational content lacked merit. There is nothing in tax law that says the educational content must meet a certain threshold nor forbids "inflammatory language".

If the IRS were staffed by right wing lawyers can you imagine how they might 'judge' the educational content of left wing groups? Or what they may decide is "inflammatory language"?

IMO, this is a very bad trend that goes well beyond targeting.

Just wait, eventually some right wing a-hole who is willing to use his office in a similar fashion will be elected to President. Some people here are going to hate having this thread thrown back into their face.

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

In 2012 I took an education credit that I guess I wasn't eligible for (who can read the whole tax code, am I right?) and the IRS told me I was on the hook for $2500 plus interest. One of the drives in the RAID in my laptop failed Friday and my domain controller disappeared from Hyper-V earlier last week.

I totally should have blamed the hardware and not paid.

(even though I'm working on a shoestring budget and 3 generation old hardware [server] all of my data survived)

Sounds like great material for your blog. Sadly, it has nothing to do with this story.

 

[ivwshane]

You know exactly what the law says about 501(C)4's, and you know that talking shit about any candidate has jack to do with social welfare and you also know that the IRS has interpreted the law incorrectly. The professor apparently chose to ignore that when righting his opinion.

That's not what the article says, that's your own (highly spun) personal interpretation.

First of all, the IRS is not supposed to act on something so flimsy as "suspicions".

Secondly, and I'll just quote your article on this point:



(John Colombo is a law professor at the University of Illinois.)

I.e., what the IRS "suspects" them of doing isn't against the rules for a 501(c)(4).

Then there's this:



Hello, North Korea?

Now we can't say negative things about "Dear leader"?

Were any groups/websites flagged for saying positive things about Obama? If not, why not?

------------------------

As we have seen in this thread the issue for the left , and IRS supporters in this case, is as stated below:



The law, as interpreted by the courts, is pretty clear. That some don't like it and are trying to use the IRS to change the law is wrong. We have proper ways of doing that and using an executive agency isn't one of them. Don't like the law? Have Congress change it.

BTW: I'm not advocating for current law nor advocating changing it. I'm concerned with the misuse of the process.

Here's an example:



So, the IRS lawyer found no misconduct (no "campaign intervention") yet renders the highly subjective opinion that their educational content lacked merit. There is nothing in tax law that says the educational content must meet a certain threshold nor forbids "inflammatory language".

If the IRS were staffed by right wing lawyers can you imagine how they might 'judge' the educational content of left wing groups? Or what they may decide is "inflammatory language"?

IMO, this is a very bad trend that goes well beyond targeting.

Just wait, eventually some right wing a-hole who is willing to use his office in a similar fashion will be elected to President. Some people here are going to hate having this thread thrown back into their face.

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

That's not what the article says, that's your own (highly spun) personal interpretation.

The part I quoted is exactly what the article says, right down to the punctuation. My comment that followed it was indeed personal interpretation, just like your comments and everyone else's comments. Other than you not liking my interpretation, what is your point? Can you show it is inaccurate?

First of all, the IRS is not supposed to act on something so flimsy as "suspicions".

Nonsense. That's how the process normally works:

Irregularity => Suspicion => Investigation => Determination
​

These applications were receiving further investigation, not only to determine their dispositions, but to help the IRS formulate a more formal policy for handling political groups claiming 501(c)(4) status.

Secondly, and I'll just quote your article on this point:


(John Colombo is a law professor at the University of Illinois.)

I.e., what the IRS "suspects" them of doing isn't against the rules for a 501(c)(4).

That was not from my article. It was from another article published in September, 2013, over a year ago. Contrary to the insinuation of the little snippet you quoted, that list included a mix of both c3 and c4 applications. It is not the TIGTA list of applications pulled for additional scrutiny.

The fact that the word "propaganda" appeared but isn't in the c4 legal definition is completely irrelevant. This list isn't a legal document that made determinations. It was someone's attempt to summarize the potential issues with the groups on the list, including a free-form text field where the reviewer(s) provided a brief summary of the information found about each group. In short, it was a starting point, not a conclusion.

Finally, as you well know, while "propaganda" isn't inherently against the rules for c4s. it is absolutely relevant if it shows evidence of campaigning or that the primary focus of an organization is partisan rather than serving the general social welfare.

Then there's this:


Hello, North Korea?

Now we can't say negative things about "Dear leader"?

Were any groups/websites flagged for saying positive things about Obama? If not, why not?

Yawn. Drama much? I didn't notice if they called out any groups for positive candidate statements. I did note, however, that they called out at least one group for negative comments about Rick Perry. (Perry, as you may remember, is a Republican.) To a rational person, this suggests the IRS was looking for any examples of campaign support, left or right (which as you also know is prohibited). In contrast, an irrational conservative with the persecution complex will ignore the fact that negative Perry comments were also flagged and rush to conclude that it's just like North Korea.

As we have seen in this thread the issue for the left , and IRS supporters in this case, is as stated below:


The law, as interpreted by the courts, is pretty clear. That some don't like it and are trying to use the IRS to change the law is wrong. We have proper ways of doing that and using an executive agency isn't one of them. Don't like the law? Have Congress change it.

BTW: I'm not advocating for current law nor advocating changing it. I'm concerned with the misuse of the process.

More nonsense. The misuse in this case was a significant increase in political groups fraudulently claiming to be social welfare organizations. The IRS was doing its duty in trying to identify and deny such organizations. (And I'm not sure where you got the rest of your quotes. I didn't see them in either article, but I may have just missed them.)

Here's an example:

So, the IRS lawyer found no misconduct (no "campaign intervention") yet renders the highly subjective opinion that their educational content lacked merit. There is nothing in tax law that says the educational content must meet a certain threshold nor forbids "inflammatory language".

If the IRS were staffed by right wing lawyers can you imagine how they might 'judge' the educational content of left wing groups? Or what they may decide is "inflammatory language"?

IMO, this is a very bad trend that goes well beyond targeting.

Lacking the context of full quotes, I'm limited in what I can offer. Was this group's application denied based on this, or is it simply more background material? I can also tell you it worked both ways. At least one of the groups marked for anti-Obama materials was then lauded for having significant educational materials on their website. I believe it was one also marked as likely to be approved (though I already closed the low-quality spreadsheet image and don't want to pull it up to confirm). In short, it appears to me that the reviewer(s) was noting both good and bad regardless of political ideology. YMMV.

Just wait, eventually some right wing a-hole who is willing to use his office in a similar fashion will be elected to President. Some people here are going to hate having this thread thrown back into their face.

Fern

ROFL! And here we see the typical right-wing denial in its full glory. Just like the birthers, just like Benghazi, over and over again it's all a giant scandal leading straight to President Hussein Satan himself. Sorry Fern, but there is zero evidence the White House played any role in this whatsoever. None. You demean yourself by parroting that propaganda point.

 

[kage69]

Nixon was the last US President with integrity.

Wow. Now there's a steamer any outhouse could be proud of. Not sure if it indicates which gives you a harder time, history or ethics, but it certainly helps explain some of your other...posts. Thanks!

 

[Knowing]

Sounds like great material for your blog. Sadly, it has nothing to do with this story.

Oh my goodness, how embarrassing! I must have mistaken this for the not scandal where a mickey mouse IT team lost a whole bunch of data totally on accident because they didn't conform to... any best practices.

 

[werepossum]

Oh my goodness, how embarrassing! I must have mistaken this for the not scandal where a mickey mouse IT team lost a whole bunch of data totally on accident because they didn't conform to... any best practices.

LMAO!

Bowfinger accusing anyone of anything in this thread is high comedy in and of itself.

 

[Bowfinger]

LMAO!

Bowfinger accusing anyone of anything in this thread is high comedy in and of itself.

Let the butt-hurt flow, little boy. Speaking of which, are you ever going to man up and admit your claim:

"The Obama administration has claimed that sixty percent of the groups targeted ... were not conservative groups."
​

was another blatant lie? I didn't think so. Go play, child. You still have nothing to contribute here.

 

[Bowfinger]

Oh my goodness, how embarrassing! I must have mistaken this for the not scandal where a mickey mouse IT team lost a whole bunch of data totally on accident because they didn't conform to... any best practices.

Good. I'm glad you finally recognize Lerner's lost email was due to poor email retention practices and not due to deliberate destruction. You should have stated that in your original post instead of posting your self-indulgent blog prattle.