• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Sol Rosenberg

Lawyer: Special Prosecutor Needed for IRS Scandal

Recommended Posts

That's interesting. Do you have an opinion? :rolleyes:

Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one but nobody wants to hear anyone's but their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have anything to say on the topic? As a member of the legal profession I thought Sol might have had more than a link to offer. :rolleyes:

 

Lawyer: Special Prosecutor Needed for IRS Scandal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have anything to say on the topic? As a member of the legal profession I thought Sol might have had more than a link to offer. :rolleyes:

 

Lawyer: Special Prosecutor Needed for IRS Scandal

No…He started all these threads this morning to punish us for starting threads he deemed unworthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a weird world when the Right complains about anything from Newsmacks.

The best part of it is that there SHOULD be a special prosecutor for this. I don't trust the Obama Administration to investigate it, and Legislative oversight has been demonstrated to be a circus of stupidity and partisanship. This needs to be investigated by someone with no ties to the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since it was political targeting, yeah the IRS thing should get a special prosecutor. Hopefully a Fitzgerald and not a Walsh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you actually AGREE ...

Absolutely. The IRS and AP scandals are real. Very real, and very important. I understand the actions in the AP scandal and am inclined to give some latitude, given the nature of the investigation and leak involved, but the IRS case has no such justifications lurking beneath the surface. As I have said since that story broke, now that we see the IRS being used in the other direction, we should be able to agree that discrimination is wrong, and work to stop it. As to this case, a special prosecutor is the surest way to get to the bottom of what happened, so that we might attain the goal of never again seeing the IRS used to discriminate against political opponents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sol, have any laws been broken in the AP scandal?

I don't know yet, other than the allegation that someone leaked classified information. There are still way too many details to know about, before I could possibly have an informed decision on that, but if you put national security on the scale opposite the free press, I will tend to err on the side of free press. In theory, it should help keep us safe from our government much like the Second Amendment does, (though in practice, our "press" is owned by the same folks who own our government, so it is little more than a propaganda tool). Still, I am inclined to give some leeway to an investigation of national security leaks; somebody knowingly gave up info. As long as every step in the process of investigating that leak complies with the law, I'm okay with it. I do not yet know that every step of the process was legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but if you put national security on the scale opposite the free press, I will tend to err on the side of free press.

 

Actually los Feds used the same scale and they also erred on the side of the free press. The AP did the right thing in contacting the Federales before printing and los Feds didn't get an order to stop the AP from printing the story. Maybe could have. Didn't.

 

But the G-men had to track the leaker with or without the AP story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but if you put national security on the scale opposite the free press, I will tend to err on the side of free press.

 

Actually los Feds used the same scale and they also erred on the side of the free press. The AP did the right thing in contacting the Federales before printing and los Feds didn't get an order to stop the AP from printing the story. Maybe could have. Didn't.

 

But the G-men had to track the leaker with or without the AP story.

I agree with that, and don't think that the AP did anything wrong. The leaker did something wrong. I want to make sure the government didn't do anything wrong, and I want to know who the leaker was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the AP did anything wrong and they did a lot of things right. They got the story. They checked with the Feds. They held the story. Yeah, the Feds fucking had to lie to them because the Feds couldn't tell the AP there were additional assets at risk. They printed the story. No problemo with the Fourth Estate on this. Hats off in fact.

 

But I haven't seen anything the G-men have done wrong either. This recusal malarkey is most amusing. Oh my.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The government didn't follow the policy as detailed in 28CFR 50.10 they subpoenaed 2 months worth of phone records and avoided judicial review in the process. The problem is that they grabbed 94 reporters records that had nothing to do with the investigation. A judge could throw out the subpoena and compromise any investigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know that that's the case and I haven't seen evidence that that's the case. I'd look at 50.10d a little more carefully. These were phone records; they weren't compelling testimony. Other than the subpoena itself, I didn't see anything in there about judicial review. If they used this administrative subpoena thingy to get the records, well that's something else entirely. I still haven't read up on that. I don't like that.

 

The 2 months isn't surprising at all. The 94 reporters is surprising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The recusal issue is the jackoff stuff for the partybots.

 

If a judge throws something out, so be it. Sometimes, law enforcement gets thwarted by errors of their own making. If that's what happened or happens here, so be it. If we allow such errors in the name of national security, from whom do we most need to be kept safe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The recusal issue is the jackoff stuff for the partybots.

 

If a judge throws something out, so be it. Sometimes, law enforcement gets thwarted by errors of their own making. If that's what happened or happens here, so be it. If we allow such errors in the name of national security, from whom do we most need to be kept safe?

 

When the top law enforcement officer of the US doesn't follow the letter of the law, I've got a problem with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know that that's the case and I haven't seen evidence that that's the case. I'd look at 50.10d a little more carefully. These were phone records; they weren't compelling testimony. Other than the subpoena itself, I didn't see anything in there about judicial review. If they used this administrative subpoena thingy to get the records, well that's something else entirely. I still haven't read up on that. I don't like that.

 

The 2 months isn't surprising at all. The 94 reporters is surprising.

 

I should qualify that doing it the way that they did, Justice prevented the AP from challenging the subpoena. Here is my source http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/ap-phone-record-scandal-justice-department-law.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting article except that I'd like to line up the New Yorker copyeditors and knee cap them. They have a bunch of weird New Yorker habits, A.P., the diaresis, .... Annoying.

 

I'm not going to counter argue the article since it's above my paygrade. But it didn't address how los Feds got the subpoena. It said "avoid the court system". Is this that administrative subpoena? That I really don't like but again, Congress is on the hook for that.

 

Well, that last paragraph is hogwash.

 

it is hard to understand how a later request for phone records would pose a threat to the integrity of the investigation Really?

If the government had a suspicion that one of its employees was the leak, it could go to a court itself and seek a wiretap of that employee. Wiretaps are more intrusive and so they are harder to get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IRS outrageously demands to see prayers:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/irs-conservative-group-2009-members-pray-193833144.html

 

After basking in the afterglow of the hot wet outrage it provides, contemplate: What kind of system wants the IRS, a tax department, tasked with determining what is and what isn't political speech?

 

One that wants the most fearsome and intrusive organization in the US government making the demands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a list of questions from the IRS that have been collected so far

 

 

Here are some of the weirdest and most notable questions and requests that ABC found in roughly half a dozen IRS questionnaires sent to tea party groups from 2010 to 2012:

  • “Provide a list of all issues that are important to your organization. Indicate your position regarding each issue.”
  • “Please explain in detail the derivation of your organization’s name.” (in a letter to the Ohio-based 1851 Center for Constitutional Law)
  • “Please explain in detail your organization’s involvement with the Tea Party.”
  • “Provide details regarding your relationship with Justin Binik-Thomas.” (a Cincinnati-area Tea-Party activist)
  • “Provide information regarding the Butler County Teen Age Republicans and your relationship.”
  • “Submit the following information relating to your past and present directors, officers, and key employees: a) Provide a resume for each.”
  • The names of the donors, contributors, and grantors. … The amounts of each of the donations, contributions, and grants and the dates you received them.”
  • “The names of persons from your organization and the amount of time they spent on the event or program.” (for events)
  • “Provide copies of the handbills you distributed at your monthly meetings.”
  • “Fully describe your youth outreach program with the local school.”
  • “Please provide copies of all your current web pages, including your Blog posts. Please provide copies of all of your newsletters, bulletins, flyers, newsletters or any other media or literature you have disseminated to your members or others. Please provide copies of stories and articles that have been published about you.”
  • “Are you on Facebook or other social networking sites? If yes, provide copies of these pages.”
  • “Provide copies of the agendas and minutes of your Board meetings and, if applicable, members ship meetings, including a description of legislative and electoral issues discussed, and whether candidates for political office were invited to address the meeting.”
  • “Do your issue-related advocacy communications compare to the positions of candidates or slates of candidates on these issues with your positions? Provide copies of these communications. What percentage do these constitute of your issue-related advocacy communications?”
  • “Do you have a close relationship with any candidate for political office or political party? If so describe fully the nature of that relationship.”
  • “Apart from your responses to the preceding, estimate the percentage of your time and what percentage of your resources you will devote to activities in the 2012 election cycle, in which you will explicitly or implicitly support or oppose a candidate, candidates or slates of candidates, for public office.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question about the item that you highlighted in red. Is there a better way to discern if an organization is deliberately going to evade the law as intended? Out of all of those questions not a single applicant was denied a permit to proceed. It kind of makes you wonder about all of the complaining. After all, isn't the IRS charged with protecting tax collection? How do you do that without questions and investigation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question about the item that you highlighted in red. Is there a better way to discern if an organization is deliberately going to evade the law as intended? Out of all of those questions not a single applicant was denied a permit to proceed. It kind of makes you wonder about all of the complaining. After all, isn't the IRS charged with protecting tax collection? How do you do that without questions and investigation?

 

The issue is that the IRS engaged in stalling the applications through repeated questions. When you look at those questions, some of them seem pretty silly.

 

The reason I highlighted that one in red is because it would appear to be a violation of the law. 501s are not required to provide their membership lists or contributions to the IRS. One reason is that the IRS already has that information from taxpayers who itemize their charitable contributions.

 

You can't deny someone 501 status just because you think they might do something bad sometime. The way it works is that you get the status if you meet the qualifications. Then, every year you file a tax return with documented evidence of your activities. If your actual actions, not something the IRS thinks you might do sometime, then you are penalized. First by losing your tax exempt status, then by paying the taxes retroactively, and then with fines and potential criminal prosecution.

 

BTW, I serve on the board of a non-profit and we have never been asked questions at this level of detail at any time by state or federal agencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have a question about the item that you highlighted in red. Is there a better way to discern if an organization is deliberately going to evade the law as intended? Out of all of those questions not a single applicant was denied a permit to proceed. It kind of makes you wonder about all of the complaining. After all, isn't the IRS charged with protecting tax collection? How do you do that without questions and investigation?

 

The issue is that the IRS engaged in stalling the applications through repeated questions. When you look at those questions, some of them seem pretty silly.

 

The reason I highlighted that one in read is because it would appear to be a violation of the law. 501s are not required to provide their membership lists or contributions to the IRS. One reason is that the IRS already has that information from taxpayers who itemize their charitable contributions.

 

You can't deny someone 501 status just because you think they might do something bad sometime. The way it works is that you get the status if you meet the qualifications. Then, every year you file a tax return with documented evidence of your activities. If your actual actions, not something the IRS thinks you might do sometime, then you are penalized. First by losing your tax exempt status, then by paying the taxes retroactively, and then with fines and potential criminal prosecution.

 

But no one was denied. The IRS is tasked with the job of making sure that the public's interests are protected. The Department of the Treasury Inspector General report even concluded its investigation by saying:

"Rather than the so-called scandal cooked up by Tea Party groups, the real criticism of the IRS may be that it has let so many of these groups get away with what are apparently egregious violations."

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/700723-treasury-inspector-general-for-tax.html

 

I'm inclined to think that all this is is a club to beat the IRS over, heaven forbid they should be allowed to do their job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I have a question about the item that you highlighted in red. Is there a better way to discern if an organization is deliberately going to evade the law as intended? Out of all of those questions not a single applicant was denied a permit to proceed. It kind of makes you wonder about all of the complaining. After all, isn't the IRS charged with protecting tax collection? How do you do that without questions and investigation?

 

The issue is that the IRS engaged in stalling the applications through repeated questions. When you look at those questions, some of them seem pretty silly.

 

The reason I highlighted that one in read is because it would appear to be a violation of the law. 501s are not required to provide their membership lists or contributions to the IRS. One reason is that the IRS already has that information from taxpayers who itemize their charitable contributions.

 

You can't deny someone 501 status just because you think they might do something bad sometime. The way it works is that you get the status if you meet the qualifications. Then, every year you file a tax return with documented evidence of your activities. If your actual actions, not something the IRS thinks you might do sometime, then you are penalized. First by losing your tax exempt status, then by paying the taxes retroactively, and then with fines and potential criminal prosecution.

 

But no one was denied. The IRS is tasked with the job of making sure that the public's interests are protected. The Department of the Treasury Inspector General report even concluded its investigation by saying:

>"Rather than the so-called scandal cooked up by Tea Party groups, the real criticism of the IRS may be that it has let so many of these groups get away with what are apparently egregious violations."

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/700723-treasury-inspector-general-for-tax.html

 

I'm inclined to think that all this is is a club to beat the IRS over, heaven forbid they should be allowed to do their job.

 

 

True, no one was denied. In fact, I'm not sure that in many cases there was ever actually a completed assessment. They were just delayed for more than a year and required to spend time and money meeting the continually expanding requirements. In some cases, the application just sat until the applicant asked about it. That led to the additional questions which were apparently not even looked at. They just sat.

 

I guess you are good with governments harassing their citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we're starting to get to the crux of the GOP angst about the IRS. Yearly, nearly $500 Million goes uncollected by the IRS due to unpaid taxes. Do you recall the name Bradley Birkenfeld? he was awarded $104,000,000 by the IRS for exposing UBS involvement in a $20 Billion fraud by helping citizens hide their money offshore. It would be a shame if we were able to collect those taxes for the country, wouldn't it? For the record the only organization denied by the IRS was a progressive one Emerge America, from Maine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need a special prosecutor to examine the $600 million in cuts the Republicans delivered to the IRS, that deprived America of $4 billion in yearly revenue. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/watchdog-growing-irs-workload-causing-150509382.html

Of course they would develop shortcuts with fewer employees and a rush of applications because of Citizen's United. Using code words would have been almost mandatory, Republicans created this problem now they should answer for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need a special prosecutor to examine the $600 million in cuts the Republicans delivered to the IRS, that deprived America of $4 billion in yearly revenue. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/watchdog-growing-irs-workload-causing-150509382.html

Of course they would develop shortcuts with fewer employees and a rush of applications because of Citizen's United. Using code words would have been almost mandatory, Republicans created this problem now they should answer for it.

 

This post should be entertaining when the IRS starts using code words like "progressive" in the next administration.

 

They're just being efficient in rooting out probable troublemakers, ya know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why we need a special,prosecutor

 

 

 

Thanks, I just nearly flipped out of the EZ Boy.... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need a special prosecutor because there is an allegation of political discrimation made against the IRS, and we lack a neutral party to investigate it.

 

Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah sure totally independent like the Warren commission.... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need a special prosecutor to examine the $600 million in cuts the Republicans delivered to the IRS, that deprived America of $4 billion in yearly revenue. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/watchdog-growing-irs-workload-causing-150509382.html

...

 

 

That article says:

 

Congress cut the IRS budget to $11.8 billion this year. That is $300 million less than last year and $1.5 billion below the request by President Barack Obama

 

300... 600... whatever. Let's call it half a billion. I saw nothing about how these cuts cost $4 billion/year in revenue, but the article did point out that the IRS collects $2,300 billion per year. If it costs almost $12 billion to collect $2,300 billion, does it really make sense to spend another half billion to collect four billion more? Seems like the bang-for-buck is falling pretty dramatically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with you Tom, making any government bureaucracy efficient is a pipe dream. A customer base of 310 million and a "employee handbook" of 3.8 million words can create nightmares for any business. The article makes clear some of the IRS challenges and problems meeting its goals, the fact that lawmakers make so many changes in the tax code further complicates their mission. I suppose this could possibly be the best argument for revamping the tax code once and for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with you Tom, making any government bureaucracy efficient is a pipe dream. A customer base of 310 million and a "employee handbook" of 3.8 million words can create nightmares for any business. The article makes clear some of the IRS challenges and problems meeting its goals, the fact that lawmakers make so many changes in the tax code further complicates their mission. I suppose this could possibly be the best argument for revamping the tax code once and for all.

 

While I agree that the tax code needs a complete overhaul, I'm not sure how this particular situation is relevant.

 

Your assertion that we need a special prosecutor to investigate Congress cutting IRS budget is silly. Thanks for the laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why we need a special,prosecutor

 

 

clipped ://youtu.be/sfooaIPczg4

 

They should have issued a subpoena for an immediate appearance by his deputy, dismissed him and escorted him out of the building.

 

I'm not sure if incompetence is an impeachable offense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What a weird world when the Right complains about anything from Newsmacks.

The best part of it is that there SHOULD be a special prosecutor for this. I don't trust the Obama Administration to investigate it, and Legislative oversight has been demonstrated to be a circus of stupidity and partisanship. This needs to be investigated by someone with no ties to the matter.

I agree. One way or the other an independent prosecutor is the only way to put this to bed. If I were POTUS I'd embrace that wholeheartedly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

IRS outrageously demands to see prayers:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/irs-conservative-group-2009-members-pray-193833144.html

 

After basking in the afterglow of the hot wet outrage it provides, contemplate: What kind of system wants the IRS, a tax department, tasked with determining what is and what isn't political speech?

 

One that wants the most fearsome and intrusive organization in the US government making the demands.

 

I wouldn't leap to the "evil" conclusion quite that fast. When it comes to complex things ignorance and stupidity are frequently the cause and it can come from the smartest people. Take Boeing's new airliner as an example. Those are the finest batch of engineers around, and what did they do? The created a new battery system, assumed it would work, and didn't test it or QC it worth a damn.

 

This may be an unexpected and unanticipated consequence in the construction of another machine, the mighty 501 Corporate Money Laundromat. They didn't think it through, and now they have low level people at the IRS trying their best to struggle with what they actually did write and not what they were thinking they wrote when they wrote it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

 

I have a question about the item that you highlighted in red. Is there a better way to discern if an organization is deliberately going to evade the law as intended? Out of all of those questions not a single applicant was denied a permit to proceed. It kind of makes you wonder about all of the complaining. After all, isn't the IRS charged with protecting tax collection? How do you do that without questions and investigation?

The issue is that the IRS engaged in stalling the applications through repeated questions. When you look at those questions, some of them seem pretty silly.

 

The reason I highlighted that one in red is because it would appear to be a violation of the law. 501s are not required to provide their membership lists or contributions to the IRS. One reason is that the IRS already has that information from taxpayers who itemize their charitable contributions.

 

You can't deny someone 501 status just because you think they might do something bad sometime. The way it works is that you get the status if you meet the qualifications. Then, every year you file a tax return with documented evidence of your activities. If your actual actions, not something the IRS thinks you might do sometime, then you are penalized. First by losing your tax exempt status, then by paying the taxes retroactively, and then with fines and potential criminal prosecution.

 

BTW, I serve on the board of a non-profit and we have never been asked questions at this level of detail at any time by state or federal agencies.

Yes you can, especially if they're an evil, racist Tea Partier..

 

Why is anyone surprised at this?

 

Listen to the invective on the part of supposedly intelligent people here whenever that organization's name comes up.

 

The President, as was so aptly described on both Face the Nation and Meet the Press, sets the tone. His minions follow it.

 

Both hosts more or less called the Adminstration either disingenuous or incompetent.

 

That's the political message this mornin, so much for the most intelligent people in Washington.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this talk about an expensive investigation when all the facts will come out in the impeachment hearings. Draw up the articles of impeachment already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have a question about the item that you highlighted in red. Is there a better way to discern if an organization is deliberately going to evade the law as intended? Out of all of those questions not a single applicant was denied a permit to proceed. It kind of makes you wonder about all of the complaining. After all, isn't the IRS charged with protecting tax collection? How do you do that without questions and investigation?

 

The issue is that the IRS engaged in stalling the applications through repeated questions. When you look at those questions, some of them seem pretty silly.

 

The reason I highlighted that one in red is because it would appear to be a violation of the law. 501s are not required to provide their membership lists or contributions to the IRS. One reason is that the IRS already has that information from taxpayers who itemize their charitable contributions.

 

You can't deny someone 501 status just because you think they might do something bad sometime. The way it works is that you get the status if you meet the qualifications. Then, every year you file a tax return with documented evidence of your activities. If your actual actions, not something the IRS thinks you might do sometime, then you are penalized. First by losing your tax exempt status, then by paying the taxes retroactively, and then with fines and potential criminal prosecution.

 

BTW, I serve on the board of a non-profit and we have never been asked questions at this level of detail at any time by state or federal agencies.

I kind of agree with you, but I'm not sure about the wisdom of letting all of these organizations operate out of the box then putting the responsibility back on the IRS to vette and scrutinize for honesty. Here is a case that ended up in court in March

A Travis County district court judge ruled this week that a Houston-based tea party group is not a nonprofit corporation as it claims, but an unregistered political action committee that illegally aided the Republican Party through its poll-watching efforts during the 2010 elections.

 

The summary judgment by Judge John Dietz upheld several Texas campaign finance laws that had been challenged on constitutional grounds by King Street Patriots, a tea party organization known for its "True the Vote" effort to uncover voter fraud.

 

The ruling grew out of a 2010 lawsuit filed by the Texas Democratic Party against the King Street Patriots. The Democrats charged that the organization made unlawful political contributions to the Texas Republican Party and various Republican candidates by training poll watchers in cooperation with the party and its candidates and by holding candidate forums only for GOP candidates.

 

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Judge-rules-tea-party-group-a-PAC-not-a-nonprofit-3442532.php#src=fb

 

seems redundant to let these things end up back in someone else's hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need a special prosecutor because there is an allegation of political discrimation made against the IRS, and we lack a neutral party to investigate it.

 

Period.

I agree completely but how do you find anyone who is truly neutral? It is easy to hate the IRS once you have been subjected to the ruthless nature of that agency. It is hard to give a damn and not have some political leanings. A witch hunt aimed simply at doing damage to the current administration is wrong too. Hell, even the SCUS is slanted. Do we call in Switzerland?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need a special prosecutor because there is an allegation of political discrimation made against the IRS, and we lack a neutral party to investigate it.

 

Period.

What we have is a confession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We already have a report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. http://www.scribd.com/doc/141606149/Inspector-General-s-Report-on-IRS-Reviews-of-Tax-exempt-Applications

Why would we need another?

 

To find out who and why?

 

I would hate to see this IRS thing show complicity or awareness of anyone in the White House (no sarcasm intended), but we really do need to know all the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We need a special prosecutor because there is an allegation of political discrimation made against the IRS, and we lack a neutral party to investigate it.

 

Period.

What we have is a confession.

A generally limited one, and a special prosecutor could fill in the blanks with facts instead of imagined outrages. Now, the actual facts might not lead where good Americans would want them to go, or they might, but to those who place importance on factual truth instead of perceived truth, having an investigator find the truth would be a good thing. Who knows, he might discover that the Kenyan ordered the whole thing. The sky's the limit! Imagine! (It does pose an interesting question, doesn't it?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We need a special prosecutor because there is an allegation of political discrimation made against the IRS, and we lack a neutral party to investigate it.

 

Period.

I agree completely but how do you find anyone who is truly neutral? It is easy to hate the IRS once you have been subjected to the ruthless nature of that agency. It is hard to give a damn and not have some political leanings. A witch hunt aimed simply at doing damage to the current administration is wrong too. Hell, even the SCUS is slanted. Do we call in Switzerland?

 

There is some luck of the draw, although if one does turn out to be un-fair and balanced enough, such as Fiske was in his Whitewater investigation, he can be replaced, and by a Kenneth Starr, if need be.

 

Nevertheless its either that or leave it up to Issa. For the President it appears to be a no-brainer, if Congress wants it. They may prefer Issa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We already have a report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. http://www.scribd.com/doc/141606149/Inspector-General-s-Report-on-IRS-Reviews-of-Tax-exempt-Applications

Why would we need another?

 

To find out who and why?

 

I would hate to see this IRS thing show complicity or awareness of anyone in the White House (no sarcasm intended), but we really do need to know all the facts.

Oh be honest RD, when you say you would hate to see this you really mean you hope that Obama personally ordered and managed it and he gets nailed for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

We need a special prosecutor because there is an allegation of political discrimation made against the IRS, and we lack a neutral party to investigate it.

 

Period.

What we have is a confession.

 

 

A generally limited one, and a special prosecutor could fill in the blanks with facts instead of imagined outrages. Now, the actual facts might not lead where good Americans would want them to go, or they might, but to those who place importance on factual truth instead of perceived truth, having an investigator find the truth would be a good thing. Who knows, he might discover that the Kenyan ordered the whole thing. The sky's the limit! Imagine! (It does pose an interesting question, doesn't it?)

 

 

Just setting the record straight Sol....In the interest of factual truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We need a special prosecutor because there is an allegation of political discrimation made against the IRS, and we lack a neutral party to investigate it.

 

Period.

What we have is a confession.

 

A generally limited one, and a special prosecutor could fill in the blanks with facts instead of imagined outrages. Now, the actual facts might not lead where good Americans would want them to go, or they might, but to those who place importance on factual truth instead of perceived truth, having an investigator find the truth would be a good thing. Who knows, he might discover that the Kenyan ordered the whole thing. The sky's the limit! Imagine! (It does pose an interesting question, doesn't it?)

 

Just setting the record straight Sol....In the interest of factual truth.
By all means. Your dedication to the truth is well established.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We already have a report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. http://www.scribd.com/doc/141606149/Inspector-General-s-Report-on-IRS-Reviews-of-Tax-exempt-Applications

Why would we need another?

What we have is the IRS confessing that they targeted political groups applying for a questionable tax exempt status that limit political activity. Nothing wrong with that and they would be derelict in duty if they didn't. The problem is they revealed their process by looking for "Tea Party" or "Patriot" in the applications. They should have been more generic in their testimony and just said "political phrases". I doubt the rabid mouth foamers will find any systematic attempt to only target conservatives nor any evidence this rises anywhere near their impeachment goals. Its just another raw hide they feverishly gnaw on until a fresh raw hide is thrown to them. They need to keep up the noise to mask their utter failure at governance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is pretty much a non-issue since no Tea Party applications were denied, Treasury should have been involved in this earlier, I mean how do you define 'politics' anyway? Who decides how much money can be spent on political action? Seems to me that there is just a lot of phony outrage coupled with a lot of non existent rules to guide employees. If there is a special prosecutor tasked to fixing this I certainly hope he focuses on groups that violated the law while he is at it. It doesn't make any sense not to clean that up while we're at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is pretty much a non-issue since no Tea Party applications were denied, Treasury should have been involved in this earlier, I mean how do you define 'politics' anyway? Who decides how much money can be spent on political action? Seems to me that there is just a lot of phony outrage coupled with a lot of non existent rules to guide employees. If there is a special prosecutor tasked to fixing this I certainly hope he focuses on groups that violated the law while he is at it. It doesn't make any sense not to clean that up while we're at it.

 

Discrimination is "pretty much a non issue"?

 

Really?

 

Okay, I get it, you're just trolling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is pretty much a non-issue since no Tea Party applications were denied...

 

Which is another way of saying that 100% of the applications delayed during the campaign season were valid.

 

Meaning the "efficient" method of spotting troublemakers by using the phrase "tea party" was a complete failure, since it spotted zero of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is pretty much a non-issue since no Tea Party applications were denied,

 

They weren't issued either.

 

Here is the TIGTA Report.

 

 

Figure 6: Number of Calendar Days Potential Political Cases Were Open (as of December 17, 2012)

 

Total Cases 160

 

Number and Percentage of Potential Political Cases Open by Calendar Day Range

 

0–120 Calendar Days - 0 (0%)

 

121–180 Calendar Days - 0 (0%)

 

181–270 Calendar Days - 3 (2%)

 

271–365 Calendar Days - 28 (18%)

 

More Than 365 Calendar Days - 129 (81%)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can there be discrimination without proof of discrimination? Who was denied, who was harmed?

 

 

Would using the word "progressive" mean politically discriminatory targeting was taking place? I think so.

 

Would delaying applications from progressives during campaign season harm them in any way? I think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So applications were delayed, these organizations were impeded from what? for how long? charitable work or political action? I would like to see the Inspector General crawl into that hole. If applications were delaying political action during the campaign season I say good! they didn't need to be a 501c34 anyway. I think we all would be better served if we recall just who writes the tax code in the first place and who or what committee ignored these problems to start with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is pretty much a non-issue since no Tea Party applications were denied...

 

Which is another way of saying that 100% of the applications delayed during the campaign season were valid.

 

Meaning the "efficient" method of spotting troublemakers by using the phrase "tea party" was a complete failure, since it spotted zero of them.

If the net effect was a delay in application and that affected their ability to participate in the campaign, wouldn't that in and of itself indicate that they were primarily political in nature and ineligible for the tax exempt status they applied for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

I love this line of argument. Nobody was hurt (except in Benghazi) so no harm, no foul. All in good fun.

 

McCarthyism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This is pretty much a non-issue since no Tea Party applications were denied...

 

Which is another way of saying that 100% of the applications delayed during the campaign season were valid.

 

Meaning the "efficient" method of spotting troublemakers by using the phrase "tea party" was a complete failure, since it spotted zero of them.

If the net effect was a delay in application and that affected their ability to participate in the campaign, wouldn't that in and of itself indicate that they were primarily political in nature and ineligible for the tax exempt status they applied for?

 

Perhaps so, SE - but, how many of the groups w/left-leaning titles were similarly treated? I know that blind partisan rancor is your favorite cologne, but, try to think a little past your favorite gotcha games in your consideration of this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what is McCarthy-istic is all the calls for investigations. That seems to be more in tune with what he brought to American politics. Or were you talking about that fat chick on TV?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

This is pretty much a non-issue since no Tea Party applications were denied...

 

Which is another way of saying that 100% of the applications delayed during the campaign season were valid.

 

Meaning the "efficient" method of spotting troublemakers by using the phrase "tea party" was a complete failure, since it spotted zero of them.

If the net effect was a delay in application and that affected their ability to participate in the campaign, wouldn't that in and of itself indicate that they were primarily political in nature and ineligible for the tax exempt status they applied for?

 

Perhaps so, SE - but, how many of the groups w/left-leaning titles were similarly treated? I know that blind partisan rancor is your favorite cologne, but, try to think a little past your favorite gotcha games in your consideration of this issue.

I would hope all of them. But when applications for conservative groups outnumber liberal by a significant multiplier, more cons are going to get delayed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing coincidence --

 

According to the White House Visitors Log, provided here in searchable form by U.S. News and World Report, the president of the anti-Tea Party National Treasury Employees Union, Colleen Kelley, visited the White House at 12:30pm that Wednesday noon time of March 31st.

The White House lists the IRS union leader's visit this way:


Kelley, Colleen Potus 03/31/2010 12:30 In White House language, "POTUS" stands for "President of the United States."

The very next day after her White House meeting with the President, according to the Treasury Department's Inspector General's Report, IRS employees -- the same employees who belong to the NTEU -- set to work in earnest targeting the Tea Party and conservative groups around America. The IG report wrote it up this way:

April 1-2, 2010: The new Acting Manager, Technical Unit, suggested the need for a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases. The Determinations Unit Program Manager Agreed.

In short: the very day after the president of the quite publicly anti-Tea Party labor union -- the union for IRS employees -- met with President Obama, the manager of the IRS "Determinations Unit Program agreed" to open a "Sensitive Case report on the Tea party cases." As stated by the IG report.

The NTEU is the 150,000 member union that represents IRS employees along with 30 other separate government agencies. Kelley herself is a 14-year IRS veteran agent. The union's PAC endorsed President Obama in both 2008 and 2012, and gave hundreds of thousands of dollars in the election cycles to anti-Tea Party candidates.

Putting IRS employees in the position of actively financing anti-Tea Party candidates themselves, while in their official positions in the IRS blocking, auditing, or intimidating Tea Party and conservative groups around the country (Link)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dig it up yourself. Paul Ryan was talking at length about it yesterday. Perhaps you can start there.

Is your head so far up this administration's ass that because "only one third" are tea party affiliated that it is normal? Really? I should think if more than a dozen were tea party affiliated that it should raise a red flag. Seriously bL, what the hell kind of drugs are you taking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can assure you I'm not taking drugs that impair my ability to process thought like you are. So Paul Ryan was talking about it yesterday and that's all you got? My god, you're an easy target aren't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing coincidence --

 

According to the White House Visitors Log, provided here in searchable form by U.S. News and World Report, the president of the anti-Tea Party National Treasury Employees Union, Colleen Kelley, visited the White House at 12:30pm that Wednesday noon time of March 31st.

 

The White House lists the IRS union leader's visit this way:

Kelley, Colleen Potus 03/31/2010 12:30 In White House language, "POTUS" stands for "President of the United States."

 

The very next day after her White House meeting with the President, according to the Treasury Department's Inspector General's Report, IRS employees -- the same employees who belong to the NTEU -- set to work in earnest targeting the Tea Party and conservative groups around America. The IG report wrote it up this way:

 

April 1-2, 2010: The new Acting Manager, Technical Unit, suggested the need for a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases. The Determinations Unit Program Manager Agreed.

 

In short: the very day after the president of the quite publicly anti-Tea Party labor union -- the union for IRS employees -- met with President Obama, the manager of the IRS "Determinations Unit Program agreed" to open a "Sensitive Case report on the Tea party cases." As stated by the IG report.

 

The NTEU is the 150,000 member union that represents IRS employees along with 30 other separate government agencies. Kelley herself is a 14-year IRS veteran agent. The union's PAC endorsed President Obama in both 2008 and 2012, and gave hundreds of thousands of dollars in the election cycles to anti-Tea Party candidates.

 

Putting IRS employees in the position of actively financing anti-Tea Party candidates themselves, while in their official positions in the IRS blocking, auditing, or intimidating Tea Party and conservative groups around the country (Link)

 

 

Hmmm, maybe the union officials need some investigating too.

 

Or, maybe just a categorized list from the presidents schedule. That might be intresting.