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

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
That is not what happened though. They singled out political activists for Israel and the Tea Party.
[ ... ]
But it's all legal now right. So if we get a Republican administration and they single out "Green Party" and "Social Democrats, USA" and sit on their applications for 3 - 4 years we'll hear no bitching from you correct? ...

It seems you're missing one critical point: 501(c)(4) status is for social welfare groups, NOT political groups. In my opinion, the IRS should reject all such obviously political applicants, left and right, and they should be prosecuting political groups that filed fraudulent applications. Instead, the only three they rejected were all left-leaning groups. They have yet to prosecute anyone (so far as I know).

 

[brycejones]

You know you keep asking this question, and the answer keeps being essentially the same, but I'll spell it out.

If the criteria for delays, and the evidence of delays (as a percentage of applicants), had included the names of all parties of significance in the USA then sure that would have meant they were routinizing everyone.

The phrases "Democratic Party", "Republican Party", "Green Party", "Libertarian Party", etc. You can find a full list here.

That is not what happened though. They singled out political activists for Israel and the Tea Party.

You also keep singling out the word "progressive". But all 7 of the groups with the word "progressive" were approved without any congressional pushing (100%). It took congressional inquiries to get them to start approving "Tea Party" applicants, before that only 1 out of over 100 applicants were languishing (1%).

But it's all legal now right. So if we get a Republican administration and they single out "Green Party" and "Social Democrats, USA" and sit on their applications for 3 - 4 years we'll hear no bitching from you correct?

You guys are a classic case of the old saying :

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

That wall of text and you didn't answer the question in the post you were responding 0/10 for you.

 

[dank69]

Two organizations ran by people who owe their jobs to Obama investigated a third organization also ran by an Obama appointee and found no crime? Wow that's surprising.

That's a fantastic bubble you've built where it is literally impossible to prove that there was no wrongdoing. Investigation finds IRS acted inappropriately? Michal wins! Investigation finds nothing? Michal wins!

 

[Jimzz]

It seems you're missing one critical point: 501(c)(4) status is for social welfare groups, NOT political groups. In my opinion, the IRS should reject all such obviously political applicants, left and right, and they should be prosecuting political groups that filed fraudulent applications. Instead, the only three they rejected were all left-leaning groups. They have yet to prosecute anyone (so far as I know).

And what's worse is after this "investigation" the IRS will be even more gun shy on people filling under these titles when they should go after them all and even more so.

 

[michal1980]

As I and others have mentioned you appear to have formed strong opinions on this without actually reading the evidence. Stop reading partisan media and read the DOJ report for yourself.

Simply repeating the same confused conspiracy theories does not help you. Oh, and nice nazi reference. Very objective of you.

I read the DOJ report. It goes out of its way to excuse the targeting of conservative groups.

It found that they were targeted, but they just couldn't prove it was criminal. Which anyone with a brain knows that's the conclusion they would reach, because they wouldn't prosecute people that are doing their work.

 

[michal1980]

That's a fantastic bubble you've built where it is literally impossible to prove that there was no wrongdoing. Investigation finds IRS acted inappropriately? Michal wins! Investigation finds nothing? Michal wins!

The investigation found something. It found that conservative groups were targeted.

 

[fskimospy]

I read the DOJ report. It goes out of its way to excuse the targeting of conservative groups.

It found that they were targeted, but they just couldn't prove it was criminal. Which anyone with a brain knows that's the conclusion they would reach, because they wouldn't prosecute people that are doing their work.

Stop avoiding the question. Can you describe a situation where the DOJ could have found no evidence of criminal activity where you would accept that you were wrong?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Stop avoiding the question. Can you describe a situation where the DOJ could have found no evidence of criminal activity where you would accept that you were wrong?

Not that I agree I believe his point is they have already been proven guilty because tea party groups were more likely to be targeted.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Interesting that a Democrat led the DOJ investigation. I guess she didn't need to plead the 5th after all.

 

[disappoint]

Unlike taxes, and Nixon, he will be missed:

Donald C. Alexander, 87

IRS Chief Successfully Fought Efforts To Use Tax Audits Against Nixon Foes

By Patricia Sullivan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 6, 2009

Donald C. Alexander, 87, the Internal Revenue Service commissioner who successfully fought the Nixon administration's attempts to use tax audits and investigations to punish its political enemies, died of cancer Feb. 3 at his home in Washington.

Mr. Alexander ran the IRS from 1973 to 1977, when the agency came under severe public scrutiny for its earlier role in investigating political opponents and radicals on the far right and left. Mr. Alexander, a prominent tax lawyer when he took the IRS job, learned the day after his swearing-in of a secret band of IRS investigators who combed through the tax returns of 3,000 "notorious" groups and 8,000 individuals.
Within three months, he ordered the unit disbanded, saying that political views "extremist or otherwise, are irrelevant to taxation," he wrote in a 1999 editorial for the publication Tax Notes. "The evening of the same day, President Nixon made his first effort to fire me."

Mr. Alexander refused to launch tax audits of those on Nixon's infamous "enemies list," blocked an effort by the Agriculture Department to obtain the tax returns of all American farmers and sharply curtailed IRS participation in federal investigations into drug trafficking, organized crime and white collar crime. He repeatedly urged Congress to stiffen taxpayer confidentiality laws, which it did in 1976.

He later said restrictions on seeing tax returns were so lax that the IRS ran virtually "a lending library" of private tax data, and governors sometimes were shown tax records of their opponents.

George P. Schultz, the former Treasury secretary who oversaw the IRS from 1972 to 1974, described Mr. Alexander yesterday as a "person of integrity."

Mr. Alexander alerted Schultz in the early 1970s that Nixon's name came up for an audit under the agency's randomized process.

"A few minutes later, he came back to me and said, 'We thought you'd like to tell him yourself,' " Schultz recalled yesterday. "So I called Al Haig [the White House chief of staff]. . . . An hour later, he called me back to say the president is at Camp David, and he is up the wall over this -- the IRS never audits a president."

Mr. Alexander was able to prove by the next morning that many previous presidents had been audited, and the Nixon audit went forward. It turned up a number of irregularities, which were leaked to the press and led to a special prosecutor's investigation. In the end, it was determined that the president owed more than $400,000 in back taxes and penalties.

The only time Mr. Alexander met Nixon, he told Tax Notes in 2002, was when he attended a 1973 concert at the White House. "You have a very difficult job. Do it well, and do it honestly," the president said.
"Later those words came in very handy," Mr. Alexander added...

 

[Bowfinger]

The investigation found something. It found that conservative groups were targeted.

It also found that left-leaning groups were targeted. That blows a huge hole in your conspiracy theory.

 

[Bowfinger]

And what's worse is after this "investigation" the IRS will be even more gun shy on people filling under these titles when they should go after them all and even more so.

Indeed. I suspect that was the real intent of this whole witch hunt, to effectively neuter the IRS so it cannot properly pursue political groups filing fraudulent 501(c)(4) applications.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Indeed. I suspect that was the real intent of this whole witch hunt, to effectively neuter the IRS so it cannot properly pursue political groups filing fraudulent 501(c)(4) applications.

Or perhaps the intent was to make those in power think twice before abusing the power of the IRS in the immediate wake of a SCOTUS decision that was politically unpopular among liberals. The IRS historically allowed 501(c)(4) unions and trade groups (which predominantly support liberal candidates) to use their money for political purposes for many, many years. No problem. But groups that may want to support potentially conservative causes...well now, that's a problem!

 

[brycejones]

Or perhaps the intent was to make those in power think twice before abusing the power of the IRS in the immediate wake of a SCOTUS decision that was politically unpopular among liberals. The IRS historically allowed 501(c)(4) unions and trade groups (which predominantly support liberal candidates) to use their money for political purposes for many, many years. No problem. But groups that may want to support potentially conservative causes...well now, that's a problem!

Wrong. Think some about the difference between a union and all the activities a union engages in and some group that has a very narrow political focus and which one looks more like a "social welfare organization".

 

[Bowfinger]

Or perhaps the intent was to make those in power think twice before abusing the power of the IRS in the immediate wake of a SCOTUS decision that was politically unpopular among liberals. The IRS historically allowed 501(c)(4) unions and trade groups (which predominantly support liberal candidates) to use their money for political purposes for many, many years. No problem. But groups that may want to support potentially conservative causes...well now, that's a problem!

You may have a point, IF you can show the primary purpose of those unions and trade groups was political. If not, you're just trying to deflect. Oh, and in case you missed it, yet another investigation just stated there was no intent to abuse the power of the IRS. From the beginning, that narrative was a canard.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Wrong. Think some about the difference between a union and all the activities a union engages in and some group that has a very narrow political focus and which one looks more like a "social welfare organization".

Please provide proof of intent regarding "very narrow political focus"...or admit that you're just making up crap.

 

[brycejones]

Please provide proof of intent regarding "very narrow political focus"...or admit that you're just making up crap.

Explain how Albuquerque Tea Party for example isn't a political organization.

You can't possibly be this dense.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You may have a point, IF you can show the primary purpose of those unions and trade groups was political. If not, you're just trying to deflect. Oh, and in case you missed it, yet another investigation just stated there was no intent to abuse the power of the IRS. From the beginning, that narrative was a canard.

Can you show that the primary purpose of those groups caught in the Lois Lerner bureaucratic black hole were primarily political? If so, I'm all ears.

Criminal charges or no...what she did was wrong.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Explain how Albuquerque Tea Party for example isn't a political organization.

You can't possibly be this dense.

Where's your proof? There are many conservative causes that support the common good and general welfare of the people. You're making judgments of possible intent without any facts.

 

[thraashman]

Stop avoiding the question. Can you describe a situation where the DOJ could have found no evidence of criminal activity where you would accept that you were wrong?

If michal1980 were willing to post and admit when he is wrong, he'd have almost twice as many posts on this forum.

 

[brycejones]

Where's your proof? There are many conservative causes that support the common good and general welfare of the people. You're making judgments of possible intent without any facts.

Oh the ironing.

 

[Bowfinger]

Can you show that the primary purpose of those groups caught in the Lois Lerner bureaucratic black hole were primarily political? If so, I'm all ears.

Me? No, of course not. That's what the IRS was investigating, whether each of those 297 groups were primarily political, or were indeed qualified social welfare organizations. In contrast, it's pretty obvious to any honest observer that political activity is NOT the primary purpose of a union.

Criminal charges or no...what she did was wrong.

The Department of Justice disagrees with you. In fact, if you read their letter/report, they actually laud Lerner as the person who immediately ordered the keyword targeting stopped once she learned of it. They do criticize her for not staying more actively involved once she gave that order, however. What the RNC faithful will never admit is that Lerner was Issa's scapegoat, an easy target he used to give the right a boogeyman to hate.

 

[Bowfinger]

Where's your proof? There are many conservative causes that support the common good and general welfare of the people. You're making judgments of possible intent without any facts.

Whereas you're demanding judgments of possible intent with equally few facts. What's good for the goose ...

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Me? No, of course not. That's what the IRS was investigating, whether each of those 297 groups were primarily political, or were indeed qualified social welfare organizations. In contrast, it's pretty obvious to any honest observer that the political activity is NOT the primary purpose of a union.



The Department of Justice disagrees with you. In fact, if you read their letter/report, they actually laud Lerner as the person who immediately ordered the keyword targeting stopped once she learned of it. They do criticize her for not staying more actively involved once she gave that order, however. What the RNC faithful will never admit is that Lerner was Issa's scapegoat, an easy target he used to give the right a boogeyman to hate.

Did they confirm that this targeting was limited to two rogue employees in the Cincinnati office as well? lol

 

[boomerang]

I have no problems with the DOJ finding nothing to warrant criminal charges. One day the shoe will be on the other foot and I will heartily condone the same actions of a Republican administration as those we're experiencing from a Democrat administration.

No more taking the high road. They bring a knife, we bring a gun. They bring a gun we bring a bigger gun, and so on. The escalation will continue because it has become the way politics are done. When the left starts whining, I'll start laughing.

We'll see how executive orders of increasing magnitude with a Congress unwilling to do their job feels with the change from a D administration to an R. We'll see how federal judges make decisions knowing there's a new sheriff in town and their job is on the line. We'll see what federal laws a Republican administration will allow states and cities to ignore. What goes around comes around.

Each successive pendulum swing of political power brings us one step closer to the inevitable collapse. Who, that is enmeshed in the system is brave enough to try and change the system? Not a single one of them. The system serves the political class very well.

We're all frogs sitting in water being brought to a boil. We find comfort in the status quo and wouldn't have it any other way.