"Not even one smidgen of corruption"

[Moonbeam]

A good start would be having the ability to know when you are making a total ass of yourself.

The ass you see is what you think you would feel if you could act like me, your own self hate. Imagine you didn't believe in those feelings. You would be free to be anything with no worries about what they think. You would own who you are even if some idiot like you tried to make fun of it.

 

[Matt1970]

The ass you see is what you think you would feel if you could act like me, your own self hate. Imagine you didn't believe in those feelings. You would be free to be anything with no worries about what they think. You would own who you are even if some idiot like you tried to make fun of it.

Did you get dropped on your head a lot as an infant?

 

[Bowfinger]

I should be more like you right? Nothing could beat the ability to redefine words to my liking and then call others names for disagreeing, the ability to believe multiple conflicting explanations of an event and the ability to define a lie as poor information handling. Then have the ability after all that to comment on others making an ass out themselves.

You're lying again, twit for brains.

 

[bradly1101]

Mr Obama has a habit of putting his foot in mouth (red lines, you can keep your insurance ...) It's like he doesn't always think when he speaks off the cuff. I admire his speeches though.

 

[werepossum]

Were they delayed any longer than any similar application made at the same time?

Yes. Proggie groups averaged a few months if memory serves; conservative groups averaged about three years. From the below link, 160 were open for more than 1,138 days. ONLY conservative groups had their applications handled by Obama's political appointees in D.C. ONLY conservative groups had their members's confidential information given to opposing political activist groups.

The IRS Determinations Group asked for a search of "tea party or similar organizations' applications." Here's a timeline:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-irs-targeting-controversy-a-timeline/

The IRS began targeting conservative groups three years ago, according to a timeline obtained by CBS News; more details are expected when the acting commissioner of the IRS is grilled at a congressional hearing on Friday.

Here's a timeline of the IRS's targeting, who knew what and reaction to the IRS's actions:

Jan. 21, 2010: The Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot limit corporation or union spending for or against political candidates in this Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, which President Obama denounced that day. This 5-4 decision lay the foundation for an uptick in 501(c)4 status applications from 1,591 to 3,398 between 2010 and 2012, according to the IRS.

March 1-17, 2010: IRS agents identify the first 10 "Tea Party cases" applications though not all had "tea party" in their name, according to a draft of The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) appendix. IRS' Determinations Unit had asked for a search of "tea party or similar organizations' applications."

October 26, 2010: Determinations Unit personnel emailed concerns about the additional review process for tea party applications to the Technical Unit. This individual follows up in November when response to concern about consistency yields no change.

June 29, 2011: IRS director of exempt organizations Lois Lerner learns at a meeting that the agency flagged group titles with "tea party," "patriot," or "9/12 Project" for supplementary review. She told those involved to alter this practice "immediately," according to a draft of the report from the TIGTA, who audits the IRS.

Aug. 4, 2011: IRS' Rulings and Agreements staff meets with Chief Counsel "so that everyone would have the latest information on the issue," according to the TIGTA report.

Jan. 25, 2012: IRS changes standard for identifying organizations that require additional scrutiny, now flagging for "political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform movement," according to the inspector general's report.

March 22, 2012: IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman testified the agency did not increase difficulty for politically active groups to get tax exempt status at the House Ways and Means Committee. The Ways and Means Oversight subcommittee chairman, Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., called the hearing after he heard complaints from tea party groups about harassment from the IRS.

May 3, 2012: Then-deputy commissioner Steven Miller was first told about the extra scrutiny for tea party groups; he made no mention of this during a House hearing on July 25.

June 15, 2012: Boustany receives a letter from Miller who writes the agency "took steps to coordinate the handling of the case to ensure consistency."

July 25, 2012: Miller testified to the House Ways and Means Committee without mentioning the additional scrutiny. When Rep. Kenny Marchant, R-Texas, asked Miller about harassment complaints from politically active tax-exempt associations, Miller said the IRS "group[ed] those organizations" for "consistency" and "quality." Neither man mentioned the tea party.

November 11, 2012: Shulman steps down as IRS commissioner as his term ends (he was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2008). Miller steps in as acting commissioner.

April 16, 2013: White House counsel's office received item line information from the Inspector General about upcoming reports, including that on the IRS targeting controversy, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said at a May 21, 2013 press conference.

April 24, 2013: White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler learned that the IRS targeted 501(c)4 applications with "tea party," "patriot," and "9/12 project." She informed senior White House staff including the Chief of Staff Dennis McDonough, not the president, Carney said at a May 20, 2013 press conference.

May 10, 2013: Lerner admits to and apologizes for additional review of conservative groups' 501(c)4 status applications, though she said high level employees didn't know about the issue -- the inspector general's report refuted this information. While the IRS asked some to provide a donor list, which is against most IRS policy, others never received tax exempt status. Overall, IRS agents flagged 296 of the 501(c)4 applications, 160 of which were open for more than 1,138 days.

May 10, 2013: White House press secretary Jay Carney said this IRS scrutiny was "of concern" and "inappropriate" when answering reporter questions last Friday. President Obama first publically spoke about the scandal Monday.

May 12, 2013: Several Republican members of Congress condemned the IRS targeting on Sunday news shows. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, demanded Mr. Obama speak out against the IRS to demonstrate "that this is totally unacceptable in America" when she appeared on CNN's "State of the Union."

May 13, 2013: Mr. Obama called IRS targeting "outrageous," in a joint press conference with United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron. He said the IRS will be held accountable if reports are true -- a sentiment Carney reiterated in a May 14 press conference.

May 13, 2013: Miller writes a statement in USA TODAY where he said "mistakes were made" in the agency's review process, adding the "shortcut taken in our processes" demonstrated "a lack of sensitivity." Miller said the IRS was not motivated by politics in setting their criteria for how to flag for additional scrutiny. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell calls IRS action a "blatant and thuggish abuse of power" the next day.

May 14, 2013: Attorney General Eric Holder ordered an Justice Department and FBI investigation into the IRS that'll analyze if the agency broke laws in targeting conservative groups for additional review, he said at a press conference.

May 14, 2013: House Ways and Means Committee chairman Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., and the committee's top Democrat, Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., sent Miller a list of 13 questions for him to answer by May 21, including who knew about the targeting and when, as well as who was notified about the additional reviews outside of IRS employees. "Despite repeated for cooperation, the agency failed to be completely truthful in its responses to the Committee during its nearly two-year long investigation of this matter, and in testimony before the Committee," the two wrote.

May 14, 2013: A Treasury inspector general report calls IRS standards "inappropriate criteria" for flagging 501(c)4 groups as the agency had for more than three years. The report blamed relaxed leadership for the targeting controversy and includes recommendations for the IRS implement more consistent policies.

May 15, 2013: Holder discussed possible criminal and civil laws that IRS agents may have broken during testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. The attorney general also said the Justice Department investigation would explore IRS offices outside the Cincinnati staff which was the first site of review.

May 15, 2013: Mr. Obama accepted Miller's resignation, effective in June, after the president had a phone call with Treasury Secretary Jack Lew to discuss results of the inspector general's report. Mr. Obama announced Miller's resignation at a short press conference after 6 p.m. where he said IRS actions were "inexcusable."

May 16, 2013: Mr. Obama appoints Daniel Werfel, 42 to be acting commissioner of IRS, effective May 22. Werfel has been the controller of the White House's Office of Management and Budget since 2009. Though Werfel's position will last through the fiscal year, he cannot be the official commissioner without a Senate confirmation. Mr. Obama must appoint him or another person to that position to fill the permanent post.

May 16, 2013: IRS commissioner of the tax exempt and government entities division Joseph Grant announced he would retire June 3, becoming the second top agency official to leave within a week of news of the targeting.

May 17, 2013: Testifying at the House Ways and Means Committee, Miller said "foolish mistakes were made" in determining when to administer extra scrutiny, but that the flagging process was not partisan. At the hearing, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George also testified about the report which detailed the targeting controversy. George seconded Miller's insistence that the IRS agents weren't motivated by partisanship.

May 17, 2013: On the "Tonight Show," 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said the responsibility of the government's "breach of trust" in its controversy triad - IRS, Benghazi and the Justice Department's AP phone record seizure - lies with Mr. Obama. Throughout his campaign, Romney warned against "big government," which many Republicans echo as the reason the IRS targeting controversy could occur.

May 18, 2013: Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., used the IRS targeting controversy in the Republican weekly address to highlight how the IRS's red tape is one of the problems in enforcing the Affordable Care Act. Because the IRS is in charge of several Obamacare regulations, Harris warned how its additional scrutiny practices with conservative groups demonstrate "that the IRS needs less power, not more."

May 19, 2013: On the Sunday talk shows, politicians from both parties weighed the need for special counsel, discussed how to prevent future IRS problems and Mr. Obama's ability to lead amid the controversies. McConnell, on "Meet the Press," said the IRS's behavior is the latest example of the administration's "culture of intimidation."

May 21, 2013: Miller, Shulman and George testified for the Senate Finance Committee, the second hearing congressional hearing on the IRS targeting controversy since Lerner first admitted to and apologized for the agency's behavior.

May 22, 2013: Werfel takes over as acting IRS commissioner, sending a memo to IRS employees that it is up to them to "restore that trust and ensure that the IRS remains the exceptional, indispensable organization it has always been." In his first day, Werfel also met with Lew and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.

May 22, 2013: After an opening statement, Lerner refused to answer questions from the House Oversight Committee. Though the committee's chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., dismissed her from the hearing, he has called on her to appear again because, he said, she waived her Fifth Amendment rights when she testified to say she "did nothing wrong." Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., the committee's top Democrat, in addition to several Republicans, have said Lerner should resign.

May 23, 2013: Werfel placed Lerner on administrative leave when she reportedly refused to resign. The new acting commissioner asked Lerner to resign, but she refused, according to Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. Ken Corbin, who has worked at the IRS for 27 years, is Lerner's temporary replacement as the agency's director of exempt organizations. Lerner receives her full salary while on administrative leave.

There is absolutely no way to honestly describe this as anything less than a Nixonian use of government to disadvantage and punish one's political opponents. Frankly, you'd look more honest to just scream racism and move on.

Furthermore, it's evidently still going on. Chuck Schumer recently called for the IRS to "redouble those efforts". Schumer said: "We must redouble those efforts immediately." Were it not still ongoing, "redoubling" would yield no effect.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/012414-687587-chuck-schumer-targets-the-tea-party.htm

Free Speech: The IRS scandal is not only not over but is getting worse, with a call by New York's senior senator for the already-politicized agency to use its power to tax to destroy the conservative grass-roots movement.

Arguing that the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision allowed Tea Party groups to "funnel millions of undisclosed dollars into campaigns with ads that distort the truth and attack government," Charles Schumer wants the IRS and other government agencies to take on the Tea Party through their administrative powers.

"It is clear that we will not pass anything legislatively as long as the House of Representatives is in Republican control, but there are many things that can be done administratively by the IRS and other government agencies," Schumer said in a speech before the leftist think tank Center for American Progress.

Calling for the IRS to use its powers to resume war on the First Amendment and free speech he doesn't like in the hopes of electing more Democrats, Schumer said: "We must redouble those efforts immediately."

Schumer was the author of the 2010 Disclose Act that failed to make it through Congress but would have required the disclosure of corporate donors to tax-exempt organizations, and membership and donor lists of the groups running "issue" ads.

"The bill was designed to embarrass companies," Schumer admitted, and its "deterrent effect should not be underestimated."

Advocating the use of government power to harass and intimidate political opponents is nothing new to Schumer. Along with Democratic Sens. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Tom Udall of New Mexico and Al Franken of Minnesota, he sent a similar letter to IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman in February 2012 asking the IRS to investigate 12 conservative groups he accused of violating their tax-exempt status and engaging in coordinated political activity.

This effort to use government power to fundamentally transform our political system more along the lines of the Venezuelan model includes new IRS rules for 501(c)(4) organizations that would redefine "candidate-related political activity" and make virtually everything such tax-exempt political groups do a taxable activity.

Washington, D.C., attorney Cleta Mitchell, who represents a number of the Tea Party groups targeted by the IRS, says that under the new rules candidate-related activities would cover just about everything a 501(c)(4) typically does, including candidate debates, guides for voting, lobbying at the grass roots, issue advocacy as well as any public statements by officers of 501(c)(4)s that reference incumbents and candidates.

Here we have a sitting Senator of the party in power actively calling for the law to be applied differently depending on one's political allegiance. Doesn't get more banana-Republic than that.

 

[Bowfinger]

Please link to a more robust analysis.

No more time to dig right now, but it was discussed in earlier threads. In particular, there's a long Discussion Club thread where it's mentioned, but I couldn't find the original reference with a link. I'll look further after work tonight or tomorrow.

The numbers in the table wasn't a reflection of all applications received...it showed those applications that were flagged for special review. The application pool was actually much larger than 111 as the IRS received about about 3,400 applications for this tax-exempt status in 2012. So it's not that the application pool was that lopsided...it was the targeting of conservative groups that was lopsided.

We don't know that based on any information release to date (so far as I know, more about that in the same DC thread). I don't know exactly what USA Today included in their analysis. The Inspector General looked at 298 applications selected for additional screening and found that about one third of them were selected through keyword screening. The IG did not explain the criteria used to select the other two-thirds, however. More importantly, the IG expressly declined to offer any analysis of the relative partisan makeup of those applications, stating such subjective political characterizations would be contrary to his role as an objective investigator.

 

[Matt1970]

You're lying again, twit for brains.

Where's the love??????

 

[boomerang]

Your desperation stinks.

Breathe deep.

 

[werepossum]

No more time to dig right now, but it was discussed in earlier threads. In particular, there's a long Discussion Club thread where it's mentioned, but I couldn't find the original reference with a link. I'll look further after work tonight or tomorrow.

We don't know that based on any information release to date (so far as I know, more about that in the same DC thread). I don't know exactly what USA Today included in their analysis. The Inspector General looked at 298 applications selected for additional screening and found that about one third of them were selected through keyword screening. The IG did not explain the criteria used to select the other two-thirds, however. More importantly, the IG expressly declined to offer any analysis of the relative partisan makeup of those applications, stating such subjective political characterizations would be contrary to his role as an objective investigator.

You are flat-out lying - not that anyone is surprised. From the CBS article I linked:
March 1-17, 2010: IRS agents identify the first 10 "Tea Party cases" applications though not all had "tea party" in their name, according to a draft of The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) appendix. IRS' Determinations Unit had asked for a search of "tea party or similar organizations' applications."

June 29, 2011: IRS director of exempt organizations Lois Lerner learns at a meeting that the agency flagged group titles with "tea party," "patriot," or "9/12 Project" for supplementary review. She told those involved to alter this practice "immediately," according to a draft of the report from the TIGTA, who audits the IRS.

Jan. 25, 2012: IRS changes standard for identifying organizations that require additional scrutiny, now flagging for "political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform movement," according to the inspector general's report.

From NPR: http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpoli...0/report-irs-scrutiny-worse-for-conservatives

Report: IRS Scrutiny Worse For Conservatives
by TAMARA KEITH
July 30, 2013 9:31 PM
The Internal Revenue Service is accused of singling out conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status for extra scrutiny.

Susan Walsh/AP
House Republicans investigating IRS targeting of groups for extra scrutiny say they have proof conservatives had it worse.

A House Ways and Means Committee staff analysis of the applications of 111 conservative and progressive groups applying for tax exempt status found conservative applicants faced "more questions, more denials, more delays," says committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich.

That is, when the IRS sent groups letters asking for further information, conservative groups were asked more questions — on average, three times more. All of the groups with "progressive" in their name were ultimately approved, while only 46 percent of conservative groups won approval. Others are still waiting for an answer or gave up.

Here's a chart laying out the committee's findings:
http://media.npr.org/assets/img/201...402b5f5a78972606de4939ffd44619375-s40-c85.jpg

Targeting statistics from files produced by the IRS through July 29, 2013.
House Ways and Means Committee majority staff
A Bit About The Methodology

The majority staff dug into the applications of both conservative groups and progressive groups given extra scrutiny by the IRS, but for the purposes of the analysis looked only at groups with names that included terms the IRS used for flagging. The terms included "conservative," "Tea Party," "patriot 9/12" and "progressive."

The committee opted not to make any judgments about the political leanings of other groups given extra scrutiny by the IRS, sticking only with those listed on IRS "Be on the Lookout" watch lists.

The analysis is the closest so far to an objective numerical accounting of how the groups were treated by the IRS. Still, the top Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee insists the study is flawed.

"The Republican analysis makes no mention of the time period of applications reviewed, no mention of whether they were the same applications reviewed by TIGTA [Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration] in connection with the audit, and no mention of the fact that there are terms that reflect liberal organizations other than 'progressive.' What's more, it doesn't disclose the overall number of conservative groups — compared with liberal groups — who applied for tax-exempt status. This is a recurring problem in this investigation — the release of incomplete information. Indeed, that is exactly what led to fundamental flaws in the TIGTA report," Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., said in a statement.

For Camp, the committee's chairman, these numbers validate ongoing Republican concerns that conservative groups were singled out.

"Conservative groups were treated differently and were given more questions," he said in an interview with NPR. "[They] were denied their ability to get approved and had their applications delayed. That means that they were targeted."

Delay, Frustrate, Impede, And Obstruct

In other IRS news, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa sent an angry letter to the acting head of the IRS saying the agency has systematically "attempted to delay, frustrate, impede, and obstruct the Committee's investigation."

The letter asserted that the IRS identified some 64 million pages of documents, but has turned over only 12,000 pages so far. It points out that amounts to "a mere 0.019 percent" of what the committee is seeking, though it's not clear how anyone could read that many pages of emails and internal documents. But Issa is threatening to use the committee's subpoena powers if necessary.

"If the IRS continues to hinder the Committee's investigation in any manner, the Committee will be forced to consider use of compulsory process," the letter concludes.

All of which is to say, Congress may be going on a monthlong recess at the end of this week, but the IRS scandal isn't going anywhere, at least as far as House investigators are concerned.

The IRS initially searched for "tea party or similar organizations' applications."

The IRS later expanded that search to include groups with "tea party," "patriot," or "9/12 Project" in their names.

Two years later, the IRS expanded the search again to include "political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform movement."

104 conservative groups were targeted; 7 progressive groups were targeted.

Conservative groups were asked an average of 14.9 questions; progressive groups were asked an average of 4.7 questions.

46% of conservative groups were approved; 100% of progressive groups were approved.

 

[boomerang]

Was Bengazi too dead a horse to beat this day?

Monday is Benghazi day. Friday's we do the IRS and the other days of the week are devoted to whatever Obama terms to be the "phony scandal" du jour.

 

[sunzt]

46% of conservative groups were approved; 100% of progressive groups were approved.

Pfft, no wonder they were being targeted. Conservatives Laud Israel for targeting Arabs for additional checks due to increased probability of risk. And then when almost 50% of conservative applicants are found to be political action groups and not actually non-profits they don't think that they deserve more scrutiny? They better be taking more time and asking more questions!

The hypocrisy!

 

[NaughtyGeek]

educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights

The IRS targeting any group based on that particular nugget should scare the %^&$ out of both sides of the dang aisle. Leave the conservative/progressive paradigm at the door.

 

[smackababy]

I don't understand the outrage over his quote. What would you like him to say? "Well, obviously we are all totally corrupt!" Yeah... That'll go over well. How about: "I couldn't tell you if parts are corrupt or not; I don't know what's going on!" Yeah...

 

[NaughtyGeek]

I don't understand the outrage over his quote. What would you like him to say? "Well, obviously we are all totally corrupt!" Yeah... That'll go over well. How about: "I couldn't tell you if parts are corrupt or not; I don't know what's going on!" Yeah...

How about, "there are currently ongoing investigations into the matter and if corruption is found to be present it will be addressed appropriately."

 

[Thebobo]

So I believe boomerang's point in this thread is that he's a paranoid schizophrenic.

Well just look at the sites he links~

 

[glenn1]

The IRS targeting any group based on that particular nugget should scare the %^&$ out of both sides of the dang aisle. Leave the conservative/progressive paradigm at the door.

Not me. The Republicans will ratchet this up exponentially when they get back in power. Retaliate and improve the techniques, using the you Bork us, we fillibuster every one of your nominees model.

 

[boomerang]

I don't understand the outrage over his quote. What would you like him to say? "Well, obviously we are all totally corrupt!" Yeah... That'll go over well. How about: "I couldn't tell you if parts are corrupt or not; I don't know what's going on!" Yeah...

He's a politician. They have scores of ways to deflect. It has been said already. He could have said well Bill, the investigation is ongoing and I assure you we will get to the bottom of it. Instead, his ego could not be controlled and it spoke very clearly. His ego was even given not one, but several opportunities to give a tactful response but it was too late. His ego was on a path from which it would not be diverted. So he lied. This is not a surprise as we know him to be a pathological liar.

We know it's a lie. He knows we know it. I think his ardent supporters in this thread are actually mad at Obama for time after time after time choosing the low road. The road an habitual liar always takes. The big fear of course is that something, sometime is going to stick.

Nixon didn't escape.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
IRS needs to manage workload with limited resources due to excess demand. It does what anyone would have done prioritize work using criteria. Unfortunately those criteria were poorly defined.

Posts like this completely ignore the Inspector General's report and the documented fact that the IRS drew up a new directive that specifically targeted the TEA Party and other conservative groups. Please see the IG's report.

Fern

 

[boomerang]

The IRS targeting any group based on that particular nugget should scare the %^&$ out of both sides of the dang aisle. Leave the conservative/progressive paradigm at the door.

But it's the age of Obama. Over 100 years for the progressive movement to reach this pinnacle and it's goin' south. So the ends justify the means. He has a cult-like following and they don't care how we get there as long as we do get there. It's winner takes all, no hold's barred, knock-down drag-out politics being fought hand-to-hand in the trenches. In addition, his supporters think only in the now. They have not thought of the consequences of a loss.

While I think it's despicable to use the IRS as a political arm, it may just be time to fight fire with fire. It may be the only thing the left will understand. So maybe what's going around will come around. If that ends up being the case, I hope it's intensified exponentially because it's going to have to get really, really bad for the left to decide it's really, really wrong.

I think we're witnessing the fall of Obama. He does not have the morals or the scruples to resign on his own so it's going to be a tough battle to unseat him. But his ego will betray him as it has so many times before. His buttons are easily pushed. It's only a matter of time.

 

[Fern]

I think this is just more evidence of the corruption on the right side of the aisle. The reason more right wing groups are being investigated is because they are breaking the rules/laws much more frequently.

That's laughable.

These groups hadn't begun operations yet.

The only active groups I can think of ATM that had their nonprofit stripped for improper actions were liberal.

BTW: As is verified in the IG's report, section 501c(4)'s are allowed to engage in various types of political activity. It's been legal for decades (actually since the law first came in to being, might have been 1939 or 1954 - too lazy to google).

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

You are flat-out lying - not that anyone is surprised.

Ruh roh. I see somebody's still butt-hurt after his last drubbing.



The information I provided comes from the Inspector General report. If you have issues with it, take it up with him.

From the CBS article I linked:
March 1-17, 2010: IRS agents identify the first 10 "Tea Party cases" applications though not all had "tea party" in their name, according to a draft of The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) appendix. IRS' Determinations Unit had asked for a search of "tea party or similar organizations' applications."

June 29, 2011: IRS director of exempt organizations Lois Lerner learns at a meeting that the agency flagged group titles with "tea party," "patriot," or "9/12 Project" for supplementary review. She told those involved to alter this practice "immediately," according to a draft of the report from the TIGTA, who audits the IRS.

Jan. 25, 2012: IRS changes standard for identifying organizations that require additional scrutiny, now flagging for "political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform movement," according to the inspector general's report.

From NPR: http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpoli...0/report-irs-scrutiny-worse-for-conservatives

The IRS initially searched for "tea party or similar organizations' applications."

The IRS later expanded that search to include groups with "tea party," "patriot," or "9/12 Project" in their names.

Yes dear, old news. This was all covered in great detail in the Inspector General report, and the many threads here discussing the issue. I'm not about to waste hours walking you through all of it yet again, since you were clearly impervious to such facts and reason the first time.

The bottom line remains that pretty much everyone agrees using right-wing specific targeting was wrong, and as your own quote shows, the then-head of the IRS immediately told them to cease doing so. What you RNC shills cannot acknowledge, however, is that this keyword targeting was only one piece of a larger program to identify political groups (regardless of party) that did not legally qualify for 501(c)(4) status if their primary purpose was campaign activity.

Two years later, the IRS expanded the search again to include "political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform movement."

104 conservative groups were targeted; 7 progressive groups were targeted.

Conservative groups were asked an average of 14.9 questions; progressive groups were asked an average of 4.7 questions.

46% of conservative groups were approved; 100% of progressive groups were approved.

/golfclap

Bravo! In the fine tradition of partisan hacks everywhere, you now turn to a Republican "study" to support your preordained conclusions. Though I could explain to you why this purported study is inferior to the IG report and is an apples to alligators comparison, it's easier for me to simply quote from your own article that you apparently didn't read:

"The Republican analysis makes no mention of the time period of applications reviewed, no mention of whether they were the same applications reviewed by TIGTA [Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration] in connection with the audit, and no mention of the fact that there are terms that reflect liberal organizations other than 'progressive.' What's more, it doesn't disclose the overall number of conservative groups — compared with liberal groups — who applied for tax-exempt status. This is a recurring problem in this investigation — the release of incomplete information. Indeed, that is exactly what led to fundamental flaws in the TIGTA report," Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., said in a statement.

Oh hey, look at that bolded section. Your article, the one you suggest shows I'm lying, actually corroborates what I said. Good news Possy, my friend, that puts you on the same bus as Matt. The same pathetically short bus for political hacks who cannot accept reality or admit error.

TL;DR -- It's you who's flat-out lying, sweetie. For all your sanctimonious posturing about your non-partisanship, in the vast majority of cases you're just a typical RNC shill.

 

[Bowfinger]

No more time to dig right now, but it was discussed in earlier threads. In particular, there's a long Discussion Club thread where it's mentioned, but I couldn't find the original reference with a link. I'll look further after work tonight or tomorrow.


We don't know that based on any information release to date (so far as I know, more about that in the same DC thread). I don't know exactly what USA Today included in their analysis. The Inspector General looked at 298 applications selected for additional screening and found that about one third of them were selected through keyword screening. The IG did not explain the criteria used to select the other two-thirds, however. More importantly, the IG expressly declined to offer any analysis of the relative partisan makeup of those applications, stating such subjective political characterizations would be contrary to his role as an objective investigator.

Doc Savage Fan -- I didn't find the specific story I was looking for, but here are a couple on the same topic (left-leaning groups being subjected to the same scrutiny, and reportedly being the only groups whose applications were denied for political reasons):

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/meet_the_group_the_irs_actually_revoked_democrats/

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...ter-to-democrats-that-fed-tea-party-row-taxes

Also, for reference, here is the actual Inspector General report:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/141504367...o-Identify-Tax-Exempt-Applications-for-Review


Edit: for convenience, here's the DC thread I mentioned -- http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2319392

 

[Fern]

-snip-

What's more, it doesn't disclose the overall number of conservative groups — compared with liberal groups — who applied for tax-exempt status.

Oh hey, look at that bolded section. Your article, the one you suggest shows I'm lying, actually corroborates what I said. Good news Possy, my friend, that puts you on the same bus as Matt. The same pathetically short bus for political hacks who cannot accept reality or admit error.

You, perhaps conveniently, forgot to mention that the House committee asked the IRS for a list of who they targeted/investigated. I recall that for weeks, no months, later the IRS hadn't produced it. To my knowledge they still haven't.

It's bogus as hell to try to hang that the Repubs if the IRS hasn't yet produced the list that was subpoenaed.

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

You, perhaps conveniently, forgot to mention that the House committee asked the IRS for a list of who they targeted/investigated. I recall that for weeks, no months, later the IRS hadn't produced it. To my knowledge they still haven't.

It's bogus as hell to try to hang that the Repubs if the IRS hasn't yet produced the list that was subpoenaed.

Fern

You might also try giving your partisan blinders a rest. I am stating real facts to refute those who assert disinformation and assumptions as truthy "fact". It is a real fact that we do not yet have an ideological breakdown of the 298 applications the IRS pulled for additional review. I did not at any point blame the Republicans for this, contrary to your accusation. I do, however, blame people who continue to ignore this fact to shill for their party. We simply do not know the overall ideological mix of those applications. Fact.

I will also point out that by "House committee" you actually mean the Issa sideshow, not a legitimate and objective investigation by any stretch of the imagination. Given that Issa has been repeatedly caught withholding inconvenient information and even outright lying, it's not surprising to me that the IRS wouldn't feel too compelled to jump at his commands.

In fact, I'm not even sure if it's appropriate to release such information to partisans on either side. It is exactly what many Republicans complained about, that confidential information from some applications was provided to Democrats. I consider that to be a legitimate complaint, if true, and one of the most serious charges. It seems strange that Republicans aren't pursuing it more vigorously. Perhaps they've recognized the hypocrisy of complaining about releasing that information to Democrats while simultaneously demanding it be released to them, or maybe the charge has proven unfounded.

Finally, I'll note that the IRS did apparently provide the complete list to the Inspector General's investigation. The IG declined to offer an ideological analysis, reportedly because it would compromise his non-partisan role to make such subjective characterizations. The IG did note, however, that the majority of applications pulled did show evidence of questionable political activity, and it was therefore appropriate to give them additional scrutiny. The IG's main negative finding was that the IRS inappropriately used partisan keywords to select some of those applications (about 1/3). I believe most people agree this was inappropriate, myself included.

 

[boomerang]

Well, we've had some information presented that ended up being highly partisan in nature while lambasting those that are perceived to be highly partisan and personally, I'm still going to wait until it all shakes out. Now, should the investigation turn out to prove that the IRS was used for political purposes, I will make a prediction that it will be discounted because of...are you ready? Partisanship!

Meanwhile, I am still wondering why Obama would say that there was not a smidgen of corruption in regards to a situation in which the investigation has not even truly started yet. It may have something to do with the individual he put in charge to oversee it being a big donor to his campaign-or not. One thing is certain in this here United States of America and that is that we can certainly trust Democrats in the age of Obama to do the right thing. Hey, stop laughing!

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/01/10/doj-puts-obama-donor-in-charge-of-irs-investigation/

Something's rotten and this ain't Denmark.