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

[werepossum]

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.

I linked the acting Director earlier. If that didn't satisfy you, nothing will.

 

[Jhhnn]

I linked the acting Director earlier. If that didn't satisfy you, nothing will.

I'm having trouble finding that in 92 pages. Perhaps you can link that?

 

[Bowfinger]

I'm having trouble finding that in 92 pages. Perhaps you can link that?

He's lying. It's what he does. The "acting director" said nothing of the sort and he knows it. Before that he tried to claim the TIGTA report said it, and I exposed that as a lie as well. He initially tried to insinuate it came from the White House. He's floated one lie after another, hoping to find one that would stick.

 

[werepossum]

Not that the two of you would ever concede an inch on something so fundamentally important to you as using the most feared federal agency for political gain, but here's a link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/17/irs-scandal-steven-miller_n_3292408.html

Republicans could not understand how the singling out of conservative groups was not political targeting.

"You say it was not targeting, but why was only one side of the political spectrum singled out on this?" Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.) asked.

Miller insisted the IRS evaluators merely "triaged" the situation in trying to deal with thousands of applications. He noted that only 70 of 300 applications that the inspector general flagged were actually tea party groups.

Several Republicans additionally demanded explanations for why donor records were demanded from groups.

Miller said that while sometimes it makes sense to seek such information -- for instance, if a conflict of interest is suspected -- the requests were too broad and were rescinded, or the records were destroyed.

George said there were 27 such requests, although only 13 were from tea party groups.

Republicans also tried to narrow down how sensitive tax data got leaked to the press, in two cases to the detriment of conservative groups, asking Miller repeatedly if he knew of any information being shared with the White House. Miller and George said it was through oversights, and that at least one worker had been disciplined.

Deflect away, bitches. I especially like the part where you all arrive in one tiny car - although the big floppy shoes are pretty funny too.

By the way, I also posted the statistics showing there was NOT a big increase in filings. Instead, there was a big decrease. But I guess you won't find that either.

EDIT: And that's "administration", not White House. The IRS is an executive branch agency. I've posted that before, and was assured that the President has no control over the IRS, which of course makes sense since this is the guy whose resignation Obama demanded and received. But hey, lots of coincidences in your world.

EDIT TOO: Toolfinger has me on one thing though. The Acting Director didn't claim that 60% of the groups weren't conservative. It was 230 of 300 - that's 77%.

 

[lopri]

Liberals should not try to defend this regardless of legality of the whole thing. It is a targeted investigation, and even if the investigation was initiated by a few loyal underlings, the ultimate responsibility goes to the President.

Obama has achieved a lot, but he has failed many of his campaign promises.

 

[werepossum]

Liberals should not try to defend this regardless of legality of the whole thing. It is a targeted investigation, and even if the investigation was initiated by a few royal underlings, the ultimate responsibility goes to the President.

Obama has achieved a lot, but he has failed many of his campaign promises.

I certainly agree that liberals should not try to defend it, but I don't think we can pin it on Obama except in the most general sense. Maybe like Christie's culture of personal revenge harassment, but those were his hand-piked staff.

The President is responsible for everyone in the Executive Branch, but it's not realistic to expect him to control every person. Now of course he's taken possession of it, but that's likely a function of D.C. politics. Gotta shut down the investigation so the Pubbies don't have more mud to sling at him.

 

[Victorian Gray]

nm

 

[werepossum]

Quote 1)

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

Quote 2

"He noted that only 70 of 300 applications that the inspector general flagged were actually tea party groups."

Do you really want to go with 'these statements are saying the same thing' ?

Yes, with the qualification that it was actually 77%.

The IRS is an Executive Branch agency. The Director serves at the President's discretion. I can give the administration a pass on the behavior of employees up until such behavior becomes known, but when the Director makes public representations, the President either owns them or has the responsibility to correct them.

 

[Bowfinger]

Not that the two of you would ever concede an inch on something so fundamentally important to you as using the most feared federal agency for political gain, but here's a link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/17/irs-scandal-steven-miller_n_3292408.html


Deflect away, bitches. I especially like the part where you all arrive in one tiny car - although the big floppy shoes are pretty funny too.

By the way, I also posted the statistics showing there was NOT a big increase in filings. Instead, there was a big decrease. But I guess you won't find that either.

EDIT: And that's "administration", not White House. The IRS is an executive branch agency. I've posted that before, and was assured that the President has no control over the IRS, which of course makes sense since this is the guy whose resignation Obama demanded and received. But hey, lots of coincidences in your world.

EDIT TOO: Toolfinger has me on one thing though. The Acting Director didn't claim that 60% of the groups weren't conservative. It was 230 of 300 - that's 77%.

Ah, a chicken or egg mystery. Does the modern GOP require its faithful to be fundamentally dishonest, or does being integrity-impaired cause one to become Republican? "Tea Party" and "conservative" are not the same thing, as you well know (and as I have called you on before). The Tea Party BOLO was only one of the tactics the IRS used to identify potentially non-compliant political groups. It matched ~100 of the 298 groups reviewed by TIGTA, including "Tea Party", "9/12", "Patriots", and other keywords tied to conservative organizations. The "administration" consistently declined to characterize the politics of the other ~200, stating only that they didn't match the Tea Party BOLO. Most conservative groups do NOT have those keywords in their name, e.g., True the Vote, American Crossroads, Citizens United, or even something blatantly inappropriate like Conservatives to Elect McCain (the word "conservative" was not in the Tea Party BOLO). All such groups -- clearly conservative -- fall into the 200 unknowns rather than the 100 Tea Party BOLO groups.

So no, the administration never claimed "that sixty percent of the groups targeted ... were not conservative groups." Nor 77%. That remains a lie ... your lie. It was fun, however, to watch you dig out yet another, different quote in another juvenile attempt to justify your lie. Thanks for the laugh. Had you the integrity to acknowledge the truth when you were first challenged, this would have gone away months ago. Your ego seemingly forbids this.

Speaking of which, you lie again when you claim there was a "big decrease" in filings. Filings were about flat, though there was a significant increase in the sorts of questionable political applications that take extra work to review (as opposed to Boy Scout troops they can rubber stamp). Also according to TIGTA, at one point the IRS had only one person left reviewing these applications. Workload depends not only on work volume, but also on effort per unit and number of workers. I've pointed this out to you as well, but you bailed rather than acknowledge it.

 

[Bowfinger]

Liberals should not try to defend this regardless of legality of the whole thing. It is a targeted investigation, and even if the investigation was initiated by a few loyal underlings, the ultimate responsibility goes to the President.

Obama has achieved a lot, but he has failed many of his campaign promises.

I don't believe anyone is defending the possible use of intentionally partisan targeting. The debate is whether there was partisan intent. The two investigations completed to date both conclude there was not, no matter what right-wing propaganda peddlers claim. Targeting of political organizations is completely appropriate because there are sharp limits on the amount and types of political activity 501(c)(4)s are allowed to do. The problem was that after the Citizens United ruling, there was a surge in new, openly political groups trying to claim 501(c)(4) status so they could hide the sources of their funding. The IRS was legally obligated to deny such groups.

 

[thraashman]

I don't believe anyone is defending the possible use of intentionally partisan targeting. The debate is whether there was partisan intent. The two investigations completed to date both conclude there was not, no matter what right-wing propaganda peddlers claim. Targeting of political organizations is completely appropriate because there are sharp limits on the amount and types of political activity 501(c)(4)s are allowed to do. The problem was that after the Citizens United ruling, there was a surge in new, openly political groups trying to claim 501(c)(4) status so they could hide the sources of their funding. The IRS was legally obligated to deny such groups.

Can we at least all agree that Citizens United, which caused this kerfuffle, was one of the worst rulings in the history of the USSC?

 

[xBiffx]

Can we at least all agree that Citizens United, which caused this kerfuffle, was one of the worst rulings in the history of the USSC?

No.

Unless you like to say that Roe v. Wade caused every abortion since it was ruled upon.

 

[xBiffx]

100% of the groups that used "Tea Party", "Patriots", or "9/12" in their name were flagged. Yet only 30% that used "progress" or "progressive" were flagged.

Only a tool like Toolfinger still thinks there wasn't partisan intent.

 

[Bowfinger]

100% of the groups that used "Tea Party", "Patriots", or "9/12" in their name were flagged. Yet only 30% that used "progress" or "progressive" were flagged.

Only a tool like Toolfinger still thinks there wasn't partisan intent.

Well me, and the two formal investigations completed so far. Both came to the same conclusion. Perhaps if you pulled your head from Issa's rectum you might catch that. The first step in not being an ignorant idiot is to stop accepting everything he says as fact. He and most of your other nutter bubble sources have been shown to lie consistently, yet you half-witted partisan tools continue to guzzle their lies with glee. You are a proud rube, I'll grant you that.

 

[PokerGuy]

Well me, and the two formal investigations completed so far.

Which one, the congressional one along straight party line results, or the one done by the very agency that was engaging in the abusive behavior itself? Both of those seem so highly credible

 

[xBiffx]

Well me, and the two formal investigations completed so far. Both came to the same conclusion. Perhaps if you pulled your head from Issa's rectum you might catch that. The first step in not being an ignorant idiot is to stop accepting everything he says as fact. He and most of your other nutter bubble sources have been shown to lie consistently, yet you half-witted partisan tools continue to guzzle their lies with glee. You are a proud rube, I'll grant you that.

My source was the Inspector General you fucking tool.

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/tigta_final_response_to_rep._levin_6.26.13.pdf

 

[thraashman]

No.

Unless you like to say that Roe v. Wade caused every abortion since it was ruled upon.

Ok, fine, how about I reword it from "caused" to "made possible the situation in which this occurred"? Regardless of the wording, Citizens United is easily one of the top 10 worst rulings in USSC history, might even break top 5.

 

[xBiffx]

Ok, fine, how about I reword it from "caused" to "made possible the situation in which this occurred"? Regardless of the wording, Citizens United is easily one of the top 10 worst rulings in USSC history, might even break top 5.

How did it make the situation possible either? This situation was possible before, look at what Nixon did.

Do the individuals in question have no accountability for their actions?

 

[Bowfinger]

My source was the Inspector General you fucking tool.

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/tigta_final_response_to_rep._levin_6.26.13.pdf

Sorry, you bottom-feeding halfwit, I forgot you aren't bright enough to follow a conversation. I don't disagree with the percentage of "progressive" groups targeted. I was responding to this:

[ ... ]Only a tool like Toolfinger still thinks there wasn't partisan intent.

With this:

]Well me, and the two [/B]formal investigations completed so far. ...

For someone who's not dumber than a doorknob, it is clear that, "Well me, and ..." is a response to, "Only a tool like ..." This clearly does not apply to you. Either that, or you're just another RNC lying sack. You pick. Either way, both investigations concluded there was no evidence of partisan intent. Sorry for your loss.

I eagerly await your next round of impotent, gratuitous insults based on your own failure to understand the issue and the discussion.

 

[werepossum]

Ah, a chicken or egg mystery. Does the modern GOP require its faithful to be fundamentally dishonest, or does being integrity-impaired cause one to become Republican? "Tea Party" and "conservative" are not the same thing, as you well know (and as I have called you on before). The Tea Party BOLO was only one of the tactics the IRS used to identify potentially non-compliant political groups. It matched ~100 of the 298 groups reviewed by TIGTA, including "Tea Party", "9/12", "Patriots", and other keywords tied to conservative organizations. The "administration" consistently declined to characterize the politics of the other ~200, stating only that they didn't match the Tea Party BOLO. Most conservative groups do NOT have those keywords in their name, e.g., True the Vote, American Crossroads, Citizens United, or even something blatantly inappropriate like Conservatives to Elect McCain (the word "conservative" was not in the Tea Party BOLO). All such groups -- clearly conservative -- fall into the 200 unknowns rather than the 100 Tea Party BOLO groups.

So no, the administration never claimed "that sixty percent of the groups targeted ... were not conservative groups." Nor 77%. That remains a lie ... your lie. It was fun, however, to watch you dig out yet another, different quote in another juvenile attempt to justify your lie. Thanks for the laugh. Had you the integrity to acknowledge the truth when you were first challenged, this would have gone away months ago. Your ego seemingly forbids this.

Speaking of which, you lie again when you claim there was a "big decrease" in filings. Filings were about flat, though there was a significant increase in the sorts of questionable political applications that take extra work to review (as opposed to Boy Scout troops they can rubber stamp). Also according to TIGTA, at one point the IRS had only one person left reviewing these applications. Workload depends not only on work volume, but also on effort per unit and number of workers. I've pointed this out to you as well, but you bailed rather than acknowledge it.

The rabid far left has gone from "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" to "words don't mean things!"

Your "interpretation" would mean that Miller's attempted defense meant literally nothing.

Ok, fine, how about I reword it from "caused" to "made possible the situation in which this occurred"? Regardless of the wording, Citizens United is easily one of the top 10 worst rulings in USSC history, might even break top 5.

That would be "made possible the situation in which this occurred" in the same sense as "it's your own fault I hit you".

 

[werepossum]

Sorry, you bottom-feeding halfwit, I forgot you aren't bright enough to follow a conversation. I don't disagree with the percentage of "progressive" groups targeted. I was responding to this:

With this:

For someone who's not dumber than a doorknob, it is clear that, "Well me, and ..." is a response to, "Only a tool like ..." This clearly does not apply to you. Either that, or you're just another RNC lying sack. You pick. Either way, both investigations concluded there was no evidence of partisan intent. Sorry for your loss.

I eagerly await your next round of impotent, gratuitous insults based on your own failure to understand the issue and the discussion.

You're a funny fellow - although I am starting to feel bad for agitating the obviously mentally impaired.

 

[xBiffx]

Sorry, you bottom-feeding halfwit, I forgot you aren't bright enough to follow a conversation. I don't disagree with the percentage of "progressive" groups targeted. I was responding to this:



With this:



For someone who's not dumber than a doorknob, it is clear that, "Well me, and ..." is a response to, "Only a tool like ..." This clearly does not apply to you. Either that, or you're just another RNC lying sack. You pick. Either way, both investigations concluded there was no evidence of partisan intent. Sorry for your loss.

I eagerly await your next round of impotent, gratuitous insults based on your own failure to understand the issue and the discussion.

Where did I say you disagreed with my figures? You stated my sources are part of some "nutter bubble" and my head is up Issa's ass. Neither appear to be the case considering I was mentioning facts from the IG's letter to congress.

You aren't even a useful tool.

 

[Bowfinger]

The rabid far left has gone from "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" to "words don't mean things!"

Says the boy who pretends "Tea Party" is synonymous with "conservative" and "unknown" is synonymous with "not conservative." Grow up and take accountability for your words. You were caught in another lie. Deal with it.

Your "interpretation" would mean that Miller's attempted defense meant literally nothing.

No, it means that in response to accusations the IRS was targeting the Tea Party, Miller pointed out that not only were others targeted as well, but that "Tea Party" groups were a distinct minority. Facts.

 

[Bowfinger]

You're a funny fellow - although I am starting to feel bad for agitating the obviously mentally impaired.

Meh. I'm sure Biffy can take it.

 

[Bowfinger]

Where did I say you disagreed with my figures? You stated my sources are part of some "nutter bubble" and my head is up Issa's ass. Neither appear to be the case considering I was mentioning facts from the IG's letter to congress. ...

Wrong. The TIGTA letter does NOT say there was partisan intent, which (once again) is what I responded to. So no, the TIGTA letter was not your source for that steaming little pile of propaganda. Try to follow along.