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

[Bowfinger]

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?

Certainly for anyone who believes in a democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people. It's a great decision if you believe in plutocracy and enjoy being a serf.

 

[xBiffx]

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.

Sure, it stated there was no evidence of political targeting which is funny because it supplied plenty. The number of flagged application and percentages alone are evidence for anyone not being a tool, which is what I said several posts ago. Also, they stated there was no evidence of political targeting yet they state this:

We determined the IRS developed and used inappropriate criteria to identify applications from organizations with the words Tea Party in their names.

But yet somehow, no evidence exists. Sure thing, bro. I don't agree with the conclusions in that letter but it did lay out several facts quite succinctly. For one, they even stated they won't characterize the organizations as conservative or liberal. So yes, the letter was the source for the last time Toolfinger. And I'm the one being told to follow along. Like I said, you aren't even a useful tool.

 

[ivwshane]

Sure, it stated there was no evidence of political targeting which is funny because it supplied plenty. The number of flagged application and percentages alone are evidence for anyone not being a tool, which is what I said several posts ago.

I don't agree with the conclusions in that letter but it did lay out several facts quite succinctly. For one, they even state they won't characterize the organizations as conservative or liberal. So yes, the letter was the source for the last time Toolfinger. And I'm the one being told to follow along. Like I said, you aren't even a useful tool.

You'd be right if one were to only look at a small subset of information. Unfortunately for you, smart people don't only look at one subset of information to determine if an action is being discriminatory.

But by all means keep your head buried in the sand

 

[Bowfinger]

You'd be right if one were to only look at a small subset of information. Unfortunately for you, smart people don't only look at one subset of information to determine if an action is being discriminatory.

But by all means keep your head buried in the sand

That's not sand.

This really isn't that hard to understand for anyone who's willing to consider it honestly. A few harried civil servants are faced with a new challenge. They're suddenly getting all these political applications that don't appear to comply with the rules. They're not sure what to do with them. HQ says, "We need more data. Send them to us and we'll come up with a policy." So which ones do they forward and which ones do they process normally?

So these civil servants put their heads together and come up with a few quick rules about which ones to forward. They notice a theme: many of these new political groups have names with"Tea Party" or "Patriots". "Hey! That's easy. Those are good candidates. Let's forward them." So they do, not with any ideological intent, but just to make their work faster and less subjective. They never considered that such a tactic is inherently partisan. After all, if a group is named "Tea Party of Little Rock," it's not serving Earl Grey, it's political. An easy way to make the in basket smaller, giving more time to review all the rest of the apps. Simple, right? What's wrong with that? Plenty, unfortunately. In short, good intent but bad implementation.

This has been explained dozens of times in this thread. Both TIGTA and the Senate investigations concluded that that's basically what happened, with no evidence of partisan intent or any external influence. Yet Issa, Fox, et al smelled another opportunity to make a mountain out of a molehill and feed their flock of outrage junkies. And the flock swallowed it hook, line, and sinker, as they always do. Biff and Werepossum are the result, RNC shills who ignore factual evidence because it contradicts their leaders.

Other investigations continue, including one by the FBI, and there's at least one open court case still moving ahead. Perhaps one of them will uncover new evidence showing malfeasance, that one or more IRS employees intentionally discriminated against some organizations just because they were conservative. If so, throw the book at them. The IRS must never be used as a partisan weapon. In the real world today, however, based on all the real evidence available -- as opposed to the bubble's innuendo and speculation -- there was no intent to discriminate. Fact.

 

[xBiffx]

The letter from the IG states all of the following:

TIGTA concluded that inappropriate criteria were used to identify potential political cases for extra scrutiny

While we have multiple sources of information corroborating the use of Tea Party and other related criteria we described in our report, including employee interviews, e-mails, and other documents, we found no indication in any of these other materials that "Progressives" was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political campaign intervention.

We determined the IRS developed and used inappropriate criteria to identify applications from organizations with the words Tea Party in their names.

In total, 30 percent of the organizations we identified with the words "progress" or "progressive" in their names were processed as potential political cases. In comparison, our audit found that 100 percent of the tax-exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases during the timeframe of our audit.

We could not tell why other organizations were selected for additional scrutiny because the IRS did not document specifically why the cases were forwarded to a team of specialists.

Yet, Toolfinger is sticking to his defense of the IRS here:

Both TIGTA and the Senate investigations concluded that that's basically what happened, with no evidence of partisan intent

I couldn't have said this any better myself, its just too bad it doesn't apply to you:

This really isn't that hard to understand for anyone who's willing to consider it honestly.

 

[Bowfinger]

The letter from the IG states all of the following:

Get somebody to read this for you (or I suppose we can just accept that you're a pathological liar and are unwilling to consider the facts honestly): Nobody denies the IRS used partisan criteria. The question is whether there was any

partisan intent.
​

Did you get it that time? Of course not. That wouldn't serve your shilling.

Yet, Toolfinger is sticking to his defense of the IRS here:

Yeah, I know. Sucks to be you, what with the facts refuting your shilling and all.

I couldn't have said this any better myself, its just too bad it doesn't apply to you:

Cries the angry little tool who can't accept facts.

Go play, child. You also having nothing useful to contribute. You worship slime-balls like Issa and hate the truth. We get it.

 

[xBiffx]

The IRS used partisan criteria but that doesn't mean there was any intent. Mmmmk.

Did I even mention how useless of a tool you really are?

 

[werepossum]

Get somebody to read this for you (or I suppose we can just accept that you're a pathological liar and are unwilling to consider the facts honestly): Nobody denies the IRS used partisan criteria. The question is whether there was any

partisan intent.
​

Did you get it that time? Of course not. That wouldn't serve your shilling.



Yeah, I know. Sucks to be you, what with the facts refuting your shilling and all.



Cries the angry little tool who can't accept facts.

Go play, child. You also having nothing useful to contribute. You worship slime-balls like Issa and hate the truth. We get it.

Wow, you are the tool that keeps on giving. The IRS accidentally selected 100% of Tea Party groups.

Dude, even you aren't stupid enough to make that claim with any hope of being believed.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
The question is whether there was any

partisan intent.
​

What criteria do you require to determine intent?

What form of proof is acceptable to you?

Fern

 

[xBiffx]

Wow, you are the tool that keeps on giving. The IRS accidentally selected 100% of Tea Party groups.

Dude, even you aren't stupid enough to make that claim with any hope of being believed.

No, they filtered on partisan terms hoping to keep things non-partisan, dontchaknow? :biggrin:

 

[ivwshane]

Wow, you are the tool that keeps on giving. The IRS accidentally selected 100% of Tea Party groups.

Dude, even you aren't stupid enough to make that claim with any hope of being believed.

Wait are you saying all tea party groups had the name tea party in them? I don't think you are, therefore the IRS didn't target 100% of tea party groups. The IRS also didn't only select right leaning groups either, they selected groups with seemingly politically based motives based on names that seemed political in nature.

Because they selected both left and right leaning groups using the same flawed mentality, one could say their lists were partisan based but their intent was not.

It's really not a hard concept to get but you and others seen to be struggling with it. Why?

 

[ivwshane]

What criteria do you require to determine intent?

What form of proof is acceptable to you?

Fern

Well if there was intent then one would be hard pressed to come up with valid reasons for their actions.

For example:

One might say that scrutinizing more conservative groups would imply intent, however the fact is that there were more right leaning apps than left leaning apps. Intent not found.

One might say that there was intent if we look at the names they used for their bolo lists and concluded all names only included right leaning names. However the fact is that the bolo lists included both right leaning and left leaning names. Partisan intent not found.

One might say there was partisan intent if only right leaning groups were scrutinized and denied. The facts however say both right and left groups were scrutinized and in fact only a left leaning group was denied. Partisan intent not found.

One might say there was a partisan intent if right leaning groups had their applications delayed. The facts show that both groups were delayed with more right leaning groups being delayed because...wait for it...more apps in general for 501(c)4 status were submitted causing a backlog and this is also evident in the emails of the group that handled these apps and their requesting of how to handle this new, large influx of apps. Intent not found.

One might say there was partisan intent if the investigation showed a loss of documentation that would prove partisan intent was some how now missing. The investigation could not prove that any destroyed records had been lost/destroyed on purpose and that reasonable attempts were made to recover any missing data. Partisan intent not found.

So we know the accusations, we know the facts, we know the happenstance behind everything from beginning to end, so again, what information are we missing to back up any claims of purposeful partisan intent? You have nothing and any such claims are based on the same logic that is used to prove the spaghetti monster aka god, is real.

So do you have some new info to add?

 

[ivwshane]

No, they filtered on partisan terms hoping to keep things non-partisan, dontchaknow? :biggrin:

Yes you fucking retarded tool, they used partisan terms, both left and right partisan terms, hence the reason why there was found to be no partisan intent!


Keep that head buried!

 

[fskimospy]

By the way, does anyone find the idea of this "scandal" "exploding" funny now?

Obama has been the least scandalous president in decades. It's funny that the crazies can't see it.

 

[Bowfinger]

What criteria do you require to determine intent?

What form of proof is acceptable to you?

Fern

I'd expect to see something that objectively demonstrates these IRS employees were focused on getting conservatives because they are conservative rather than merely looking for quick ways to identify political organizations. This might include written or recorded comments, an eyewitness account, a confession, etc. Ultimately, it's not really up to me. It's really a matter for the (legitimate) professional investigations to determine based on seeing all the evidence and interviewing the actors involved. So far, none of the (legitimate) investigations have claimed to find partisan intent.

 

[ivwshane]

I think the question should be asked to fern and the like is; what is it that you need to see to see this as a simple issue where the IRS screwed up but that screw up was in no way based on partisan intentions?

 

[lopri]

@ivwshane: With the risk of putting words in "fern and the like's" mouth, I think the answer to that question might be an equivalent of what liberals would need to see this as a simple issue of IRS screwing up if it had happened under president Bush to, say, ACLU.

I once again urge liberals to see things through.

 

[ivwshane]

@ivwshane: With the risk of putting words in "fern and the like's" mouth, I think the answer to that question might be an equivalent of what liberals would need to see this as a simple issue of IRS screwing up if it had happened under president Bush to, say, ACLU.

I once again urge liberals to see things through.

Considering "liberals" didn't do shit when it was found out that Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11, nor did it have WMD's and "liberals" didn't do shit when we tortured pow's, I'd say that if this happened under bush that absolutely nothing would have happened.

Btw, this story has been "seen through", the investigation is over and NO PARTISAN INTENT was found, none! So I'll ask my question again:

What is it that you need to see to see this as a simple issue where the IRS screwed up but that screw up was in no way based on partisan intentions?

 

[MongGrel]

Necroing this thing non stop is getting old.

 

[Fern]

I'd expect to see something that objectively demonstrates these IRS employees were focused on getting conservatives because they are conservative rather than merely looking for quick ways to identify political organizations. This might include written or recorded comments, an eyewitness account, a confession, etc.
-snip-

Written comments? Well, given missing emails and other correspondence that can't happen

Eyewitness account? I'm not sure what that means in this context.

Confession? Well, that would be pretty rare wouldn't it? Claiming the 5th should also be mentioned here.

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

Written comments? Well, given missing emails and other correspondence that can't happen

The IRS has turned over upwards of one million pages of printed evidence plus 67,000 of Lerner's emails -- including 24,000 recovered from the period "lost" in her hard drive crash. While it's true that's not every single email Lerner sent, it's a huge pile of evidence. Further, Lerner was not the only IRS employee involved, and according to the two complete investigations, she wasn't even involved in setting up the initial Tea Party BOLO.

Eyewitness account? I'm not sure what that means in this context.

Someone who was a party to discussions about "getting conservatives" comes forward.

Confession? Well, that would be pretty rare wouldn't it? Claiming the 5th should also be mentioned here.

Fern

I don't think confessions are rare at all in such circumstances, and the more people there are, the more likely it is some will come forward to confess in return for immunity. That not one person in this purported conspiracy has come forward shows that they are either one of the most loyal teams ever ... or there was no conspiracy.

 

[ivwshane]

Good riddance to that piece of shit Issa!

http://news.yahoo.com/issa-probe-fails-white-house-irs-scandal-160604665--finance.html

 

[michal1980]

Good riddance to that piece of shit Issa!

http://news.yahoo.com/issa-probe-fails-white-house-irs-scandal-160604665--finance.html

when you destroy emails its easy to cover shit up.

But the truth is that the IRS still targeted the Tea Party

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/23/irs-employees-biased-against-conservatives-report/


The left doesn't care that a government agency that's not supposed to take sides, actively worked against one political party, because that party wasn't the dems. If the dems were targeting you'd be blowing a gasket.

 

[PokerGuy]

Interesting update.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...se-32-000-supposedly-lost-emails-turn-up.html

IRS inspector told congress yesterday that they are investigating potential criminal activity for Louis Lerner now that many (if not all) of the "missing" emails have been recovered.

the House Oversight and Governmnt Reform Committee heard that investigators needed only two weeks to locate 32,774 of them on 744 backup tapes. IRS higher-ups, they said, had never asked them to look.

So, the IRS sends reps to talk to congress and claim they tried so hard to retrieve all the emails but they were gone because of drive crashes. Now it turns out that they simply never asked for them to be retrieved? Wow, the lies continue.

 

[chucky2]

That's really not believable honestly. You're telling me something as public as this is, that if they're not officially asked to find what everyone (except Lerner, the IRS, and the Dems of course) is looking for, they wouldn't? I mean, it's Gov, with the added layer of controlled by Politician, so I'd believe anything...I guess I'm just hoping that our Gov system is that F'd up...