Those Low-Level IRS Employees in Cincinnati Sure Were Tricky

[sappstuf]

Among the letters were several that bore return IRS addresses other than Cincinnati, including "Department of the Treasury / Internal Revenue Service / Washington, D.C.," and the signatures of IRS officials higher up the chain. Two letters with "Department of the Treasury / Internal Revenue Service / Washington, D.C." letterhead were signed by "Tax Law Specialist(s)" from Exempt Organizations Technical Group 1 and Technical Group 2. Lerner’s signature, which appeared to be a stamp rather than an actual signature, appeared on a letter requesting additional information from the Ohio Liberty Council Corp.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/28/18563008-irs-higher-ups-requested-info-on-conservative-groups-letters-show?lite

If you believe the White House's story then they must have forged all of those signatures, got letterhead from difference offices around the country including Washington DC.

Or.... There was a systemic targeting of conservative groups.

[KantoSooner]

There is, quite simply, no effing way this thing wasn't orchestrated at the head quarters level of either the IRS, the Treasury Dept or the White House.
And, if that's so, then it might be a good idea to subpoena the credit card records of the staff involved there and try to determine who they were lunching and dining with...because I sincerely doubt that anyone in the IRS or Treasury came up with this little brainstorm all by their lonesome.
It rather has the pungent aroma of Rahm about it.

[diverdog]

There is, quite simply, no effing way this thing wasn't orchestrated at the head quarters level of either the IRS, the Treasury Dept or the White House.
And, if that's so, then it might be a good idea to subpoena the credit card records of the staff involved there and try to determine who they were lunching and dining with...because I sincerely doubt that anyone in the IRS or Treasury came up with this little brainstorm all by their lonesome.
It rather has the pungent aroma of Rahm about it.

I am not sure this will be as bad as it looks. It appears a lot of these groups were setting up 501 C 4 for political activity. My guess is that the set up of all the Tea Party
501 C 4 were directed and they were poorly informed on how to run them. This looks like a boiler plate set up and form and get these groups active. If I were testifying before Congress I would go on the offense and tell them they created this nightmare and now they need to fix it.

I think this article has it right:

http://business.time.com/2013/05/14/the-irs-was-wrong-but-many-political-groups-should-not-be-tax-exempt/

[Curly Bill]

I love the smell of scandal in the morning. Keeps the Obammies busy defending themselves and gives em less time to ruin the country more than they already have. And if we can impeach someone or throw someone in jail so much the better!

[olevetonahill]

I love the smell of scandal in the morning. Keeps the Obammies busy defending themselves and gives em less time to ruin the country more than they already have. And if we can impeach someone or throw someone in jail so much the better!

Heh.

[KantoSooner]

"It smells like......victory."

One of the greatest movie lines of all time.

[sappstuf]

I am not sure this will be as bad as it looks. It appears a lot of these groups were setting up 501 C 4 for political activity. My guess is that the set up of all the Tea Party
501 C 4 were directed and they were poorly informed on how to run them. This looks like a boiler plate set up and form and get these groups active. If I were testifying before Congress I would go on the offense and tell them they created this nightmare and now they need to fix it.

I think this article has it right:

http://business.time.com/2013/05/14/the-irs-was-wrong-but-many-political-groups-should-not-be-tax-exempt/

It is hard to go on the offense when pleading the 5th... Lerner was the first, she won't be the last.

[jkjsooner]

If you believe the White House's story then they must have forged all of those signatures, got letterhead from difference offices around the country including Washington DC.

Or.... There was a systemic targeting of conservative groups.

Everything in that quote seems pretty formulaic. The return address is probably the same for any request of this type.

[diverdog]

What will be hidden is that many of these organization were skirting the tax code. I would be willing to bet that 3/4 of them are political in nature and should be denied tax exempt status. It is really to bad the American people do not understand Citizens United and 501 C 4 organizations. We have created a way for corporations and billionaires to corrupt the political process.

[KABOOKIE]

I can only imagine the screaming from you dd if the parties being routinely denied and harassed were (D) instead.

[diverdog]

I can only imagine the screaming from you dd if the parties being routinely denied and harassed were (D) instead.

I do not care which party this happened to. The use of this code as a way to secretly funnel tax exempt money into campaigns needs to stop. 501 C 4 status is meant for community activities. Anything that is remotely related to elections should be funneled through PACs and the names of all donors revealed to the public. These Tea Party 501 C 4's are being used to get people elected and should have been denied from the get go.

FYI one of the 501 C 3's I helped form, a land conservation trust, took more than two years to form and we had to answer tons of questions. There is a legitimate concern on the partof the IRS that C3 and C4 organization can be used to evade taxes.

[sappstuf]

What will be hidden is that many of these organization were skirting the tax code. I would be willing to bet that 3/4 of them are political in nature and should be denied tax exempt status. It is really to bad the American people do not understand Citizens United and 501 C 4 organizations. We have created a way for corporations and billionaires to corrupt the political process.

You mean following the tax code correct? The AP looked at the Tea Party organizations and found that the median annual cash flow through these organizations was $16.5K... That is it.

These were not corporations and billionaires... They were truly grassroots organizations.

[sappstuf]

Everything in that quote seems pretty formulaic. The return address is probably the same for any request of this type.

Good grief... Blindly defending the IRS. Read the story.

The IRS has already admitted wrongdoing in specifically targeting Tea Party groups. That fact is not in debate. What is in debate is that the IRS claimed that only low-level employees in the Cincinnati office were doing this. What the NBC story shows, is that is a lie.

Another thing the White House has to explain is that from 2010 to 2011 the IRS commissioner visited the White House 118 times. In contrast, the IRS commissioner for Bush visited the White House exactly once in 4 years. Obama's commissioner claimed in testimony that he could not remember why he went to the White House or what was talked about. Those are also facts.

Any sensible adult knows he is lying and that he knows why he was there. It is just a matter of when something pops up that proves it. When it does, expect the 5th to be taken yet again.

It does beg the question of why the head of a supposed apolitical organization would go to one of the most political places on the planet 118 times at the same time enemies of the administration were specifically targeted by that apolitical organization.

[diverdog]

You mean following the tax code correct? The AP looked at the Tea Party organizations and found that the median annual cash flow through these organizations was $16.5K... That is it.

These were not corporations and billionaires... They were truly grassroots organizations.

It doesn't matter. They were involved in politics. Also weren't there something like 3500 of these request?

[Midtowner]

501 c(4)s can be involved in politics so long as it's voter education only. When they do what, for example, Al Gerhart of the Sooner Tea Party allegedly did and actually lobby legislators to act against UN Agenda 21, that's not something 501c(4)s are allowed to do. It stands to reason that anything with "Tea Party" in the name deserves a second look. I'm guessing not many of you have experience setting up not for profit corporations. It's a pain. I've seen even setting up a Bass fishing club as a 501c(3) to be a difficult process. It is said that the IRS trains its noobs in the not-for-profit applications department and I believe it.

[sappstuf]

It doesn't matter. They were involved in politics. Also weren't there something like 3500 of these request?

You are right. The IRS was involved in politics and that should never happen.

The IRS admitted to 90 or so.. The press has uncovered about 300.

[XingTheRubicon]

501 c(4)s can be involved in politics so long as it's voter education only. When they do what, for example, Al Gerhart of the Sooner Tea Party allegedly did and actually lobby legislators to act against UN Agenda 21, that's not something 501c(4)s are allowed to do. It stands to reason that anything with "Tea Party" in the name deserves a second look. I'm guessing not many of you have experience setting up not for profit corporations. It's a pain. I've seen even setting up a Bass fishing club as a 501c(3) to be a difficult process. It is said that the IRS trains its noobs in the not-for-profit applications department and I believe it.

That must explain why dozens of "progressive groups" were approved in less than a year with zero liberal groups coming forward with proof of inappropriate and invasive questions and not being sent through.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-progressive-groups/2158831/

[olevetonahill]

Ya gotta Love when the Idiot Libs try to Spin and Deflect. According to Them. The IRS and Obammy's bunch did nothing wrong, It was the fault of those groups.

Kinda Like a Rape defense" I wouldnt have raped her, If she hadnt been wearing that short skirt" :bi_polo:

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Lies and Obfuscation from the most corrupt administration ever!

[TAFBSooner]

1. We do, in major point of fact, need to abolish the concept that tax-exempt organizations can be involved in politics to any degree. Along with getting corporations out of politics.

2. Obama and/or his top handlers used a threaded fastener on the canine. Sorry, fellow liberals. Instead of defending the authoritarian centrist, start working to get an actual liberal elected.

[diverdog]

That must explain why dozens of "progressive groups" were approved in less than a year with zero liberal groups coming forward with proof of inappropriate and invasive questions and not being sent through.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-progressive-groups/2158831/

I am in no way supporting what the IRS did. What I do not like is the use of tax exempt money for politics.

[KantoSooner]

Why limit it to tax exempt money? Let's limit the money, period.

Until that time, however, here's how this case shapes up in case anyone is showing up late.

Almost immediately following Obama's first election, a coordinated and concerted effort was undertaken by the IRS to isolate certain organizations of a conservative bias and to make it more difficult for them to get tax exemptions than competitive liberally biased organizations.
The numbers range from hundreds of groups to perhaps thousands. It was not a clerical error or a rogue coupla employees. The behavior extended through multiple offices.
It is speculative but worthy of consideration that to institute such a coordinated and concerted effort is not likely the work of 'low level' employees acting alone in relative isolation. How often do you see clerks taking on such responsibility by themselves?
During this same period, the head of the IRS was meeting on a near weekly basis with personnel in the White House. For comparison purposes, previous administrations had held White House meetings with IRS heads less than one tenth as often.

Now, I'm going to go a bit further out on the limb here, but those facts would appear to me to indicate:

1. Premeditation
2. A group of folks involved
3. With intent to do illegal stuff
4. Positive acts in furtherance of their scheme.

Now, depending on what jury instructions one wants to use, that's getting pretty darn close to a complete set of the elements of conspiracy. With White House connectionis. And for a federal employee to use a department of the government with police powers in pursuit of a criminal aim would seem to me to equal many long years in the pen.

Have i got the elements of this little embroglio about right?

[jkjsooner]

Ya gotta Love when the Idiot Libs try to Spin and Deflect. According to Them. The IRS and Obammy's bunch did nothing wrong, It was the fault of those groups.

Kinda Like a Rape defense" I wouldnt have raped her, If she hadnt been wearing that short skirt" :bi_polo:

I don't think nothing done was wrong. I do think there are several possibilities that are likely.

1. This was a concerted effort up the chain to punish conservative groups.
2. This was a lower level but still politically motivated effort.
3. The criteria used was purely unbiased and objective. Either the results were not scrutinized or the seeming bias was ignored.

I know #3 might seem far fetched to some but there are definitely scenarios that could explain what appears to be extreme bias. One manager asks a computer analyst to query their databases and identify keywords that have been used by political organization. The analyst looks back a year or two in a time period where most new political organizations were conservative tea party types. The analyst identifies a top 10 list of key words. The manager doesn't scrutinize this list but instead runs with it and decides to institute a policy of questioning the status of all organizations that have these key words.

The reason this isn't far fetched is because we know that computer algorithms play a critical role in the IRS. These algorithms could have identified these key words and triggered extra scrutiny without any external involvement.

[KantoSooner]

JK, I admire your dedication to unflinching fairness. Yes, there is some possibility that nothing untoward took place here.

By that same token, Bernie Madoff's wife and sons arguably knew NOTHING about his misdeeds. Doctor Mudd might have had no idea whatsoever that the man he treated for a broken leg was John Wilkes Booth. And the Boston Marathon Bombers might well be innocent immigrant boys who have been mistreated by the Boston cops.

Possible? Yes. Probable? Not in the least.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I am in no way supporting what the IRS did. What I do not like is the use of tax exempt money for politics.

I agree with you on this, a sure way to stop this is a flat tax (or even a VAT, ewww). Kill off the IRS, then they can't manipulate the tax code for politican favors, gets Congress out of doling out favors...

[KantoSooner]

I agree with you on this, a sure way to stop this is a flat tax (or even a VAT, ewww). Kill off the IRS, then they can't manipulate the tax code for politican favors, gets Congress out of doling out favors...

Ding ding ding

You and I hardly ever agree, so it's worth noting when we do. YES! the more 'stuff' that can be moved out of the prerogative of some faceless bureaucrat/drone to decide upon, the better. Flat tax and limit political donations to $200/person/year...and they aren't deductable. Badda Bing, so very many problems solved.

[Midtowner]

A flat tax is a huge hike on the poor.

[sappstuf]

A flat tax is a huge hike on the poor.

But they have free health care.... I'd call that a wash.

[Midtowner]

But they have free health care.... I'd call that a wash.

They had free health care before. This wouldn't make their rent prices or food prices go down because those landlords certainly aren't going to pass their tax savings on to their tenants.

[rock on sooner]

Ding ding ding

You and I hardly ever agree, so it's worth noting when we do. YES! the more 'stuff' that can be moved out of the prerogative of some faceless bureaucrat/drone to decide upon, the better. Flat tax and limit political donations to $200/person/year...and they aren't deductable. Badda Bing, so very many problems solved.

Biggest issue here is you're asking politicians to cut off their
own cash flow. And, a flat tax IS truly regressive...but, the last
part about solving so many problems is accurate...

[KantoSooner]

Flat taxes are not regressive. You simply exempt the first, say, $20K of income and eliminate sales taxes on food and clothing.

When you make a flat tax, you also eliminate the unequal taxation of ordinary income and capital gains. You get rid of the mortgage deduction. No more itemization. Etc. All of the tax breaks. All things that the truly poor have been unable to take advantage of ....ever.

If there are two groups of people who 'lose' in a flat tax regime, it's accountants and IRS employees. Very little need for either of them after that. But, for their own souls and for the good of the society they would then be free to go engage in truly productive work and could later on look back at careers spent doing useful things rather than simply sucker jawing onto the mordant corpse of a zombie tax system.

[Midtowner]

Biggest issue here is you're asking politicians to cut off their
own cash flow. And, a flat tax IS truly regressive...but, the last
part about solving so many problems is accurate...

We need a progressive tax rate, so why not a flat progressive tax rate? Drop the marginal rate by 10% across the board from present levels, but ban by constitutional amendment all deductions and credits, maybe make some limited allowance for support alimony, but that's it.

[sappstuf]

They had free health care before. This wouldn't make their rent prices or food prices go down because those landlords certainly aren't going to pass their tax savings on to their tenants.

I'm sure Obama could just target the landlords with the IRS and force them.... He is good at that sort of thing.

[jkjsooner]

Flat taxes are not regressive. You simply exempt the first, say, $20K of income and eliminate sales taxes on food and clothing.

When you make a flat tax, you also eliminate the unequal taxation of ordinary income and capital gains. You get rid of the mortgage deduction. No more itemization. Etc. All of the tax breaks. All things that the truly poor have been unable to take advantage of ....ever.

If there are two groups of people who 'lose' in a flat tax regime, it's accountants and IRS employees. Very little need for either of them after that. But, for their own souls and for the good of the society they would then be free to go engage in truly productive work and could later on look back at careers spent doing useful things rather than simply sucker jawing onto the mordant corpse of a zombie tax system.

What about retirement savings. Can you still contribute to those with pre-tax money?

I worry about the "no more itemization" part as it pertains to businesses. Are business expenses considered deductions or are they in some other category? The reason I ask is because you couldn't expect a business owner to pay on gross income considering the profit might only be a tiny fraction of gross income.

[Midtowner]

I'm sure Obama could just target the landlords with the IRS and force them.... He is good at that sort of thing.

Your tinfoil hat ain't on straight.

[rock on sooner]

Flat taxes are not regressive. You simply exempt the first, say, $20K of income and eliminate sales taxes on food and clothing.

When you make a flat tax, you also eliminate the unequal taxation of ordinary income and capital gains. You get rid of the mortgage deduction. No more itemization. Etc. All of the tax breaks. All things that the truly poor have been unable to take advantage of ....ever.

If there are two groups of people who 'lose' in a flat tax regime, it's accountants and IRS employees. Very little need for either of them after that. But, for their own souls and for the good of the society they would then be free to go engage in truly productive work and could later on look back at careers spent doing useful things rather than simply sucker jawing onto the mordant corpse of a zombie tax system.

I'll buy your argument, only IF the exemption idea is cast in stone.
My concern is that the politicians usually find a way to get into the
money pots known as exemptions all too easily.

[KantoSooner]

What about retirement savings. Can you still contribute to those with pre-tax money?

I worry about the "no more itemization" part as it pertains to businesses. Are business expenses considered deductions or are they in some other category? The reason I ask is because you couldn't expect a business owner to pay on gross income considering the profit might only be a tiny fraction of gross income.

I would think very hard about eliminating taxes on businesses and corporations. Instead tax the money taken out of them by shareholders or owners. If they choose to leave the money in the org, fine and that builds up a body of cash for investment and lessens business competition with individuals for loan dollars.

[KantoSooner]

I'll buy your argument, only IF the exemption idea is cast in stone.
My concern is that the politicians usually find a way to get into the
money pots known as exemptions all too easily.

It would certainly be a change in political culture...and I doubt anything like that would actually happen, but it is fun to think about.

[sappstuf]

Your tinfoil hat ain't on straight.

What tinfoil hat? The IRS has already admitted to targeting conservatives for extra scrutiny at the same time that the IRS commissioner visited the White House 158 times in 2 years versus 1 visit in 4 years for the commissioner under Bush.

That is all fact.

Now read this story from CBS....


Within months of the groups filing for tax-exempt status, Engelbrecht claims she started getting hit by an onslaught of harassment: six FBI domestic terrorism inquiries, an IRS visit, two IRS business audits, two IRS personal audits, and inspections of her equipment manufacturing company by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), the U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Texas environmental quality officials.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57586763/whats-going-on-between-the-irs-and-true-the-vote/

The IRS has admitted to targeting conservatives... It is no longer crazy claims.. It is now fact. It brings all this stuff well into the realm of possible to the realm of probable.

[Midtowner]

What tinfoil hat? The IRS has already admitted to targeting conservatives for extra scrutiny at the same time that the IRS commissioner visited the White House 158 times in 2 years versus 1 visit in 4 years for the commissioner under Bush.

That is all fact.

Now read this story from CBS....


It's not all fact, it's all weak inference.

[KantoSooner]

Mid, let me run a scenario by you, one that I have no reason to believe or disbelieve.

Somebody on Obama's political team said, in essence, 'F*ck it. I'm done playing with my hands tied behind my back. Those f*ckers have Koch money? We have the effing GOVERNMENT, boys, and we're going downtown.'

Do you imagine that it would be hard to suborn the cooperation of IRS and other officials if someone who legitimately was close to the POTUS was asking ...nicely?

Again, I have no means of knowing, yet; but such a scenario fits the facts as we know them to be at this stage. And the bad thing, from Obama's point of view, is that every drip of fresh revelation that sneaks out about this affair seems to support such an analysis.

This is shaping up to be every bit as bad as Watergate. And, ironically, it's being played in precisely the same way by the sitting US Pres.

[rock on sooner]

Here's another viewpoint....the three offices in question, D.C., Cincy
and San Francisco all have mid to upper level officials that talk to
one another...Cincy started it and the other two fell in behind talking
about how to make life difficult for conservatives and gain favor to
move up bringing in someone in from the Administration. As much
as the conservatives want it to be, I don't think the Prez knew anything
about it until the press blew it open, but, I think someone pretty high
up in the organization DID know....

[diverdog]

I agree with you on this, a sure way to stop this is a flat tax (or even a VAT, ewww). Kill off the IRS, then they can't manipulate the tax code for politican favors, gets Congress out of doling out favors...

Yep, totally agree. I saw this train wreck coming years ago. Anyone who did not think there could be abuse would be niave.

[Midtowner]

Or how about the IRS was flooded with applications from Tea Party groups which didn't seem to fit 501(c)(4) criteria and therefore when they saw other Tea party groups apply, they gave a little extra scrutiny?

[diverdog]

Mid, let me run a scenario by you, one that I have no reason to believe or disbelieve.

Somebody on Obama's political team said, in essence, 'F*ck it. I'm done playing with my hands tied behind my back. Those f*ckers have Koch money? We have the effing GOVERNMENT, boys, and we're going downtown.'

Do you imagine that it would be hard to suborn the cooperation of IRS and other officials if someone who legitimately was close to the POTUS was asking ...nicely?

Again, I have no means of knowing, yet; but such a scenario fits the facts as we know them to be at this stage. And the bad thing, from Obama's point of view, is that every drip of fresh revelation that sneaks out about this affair seems to support such an analysis.

This is shaping up to be every bit as bad as Watergate. And, ironically, it's being played in precisely the same way by the sitting US Pres.

They were getting tons of heat from guys like Chuck Schumer.

[jkjsooner]

I would think very hard about eliminating taxes on businesses and corporations. Instead tax the money taken out of them by shareholders or owners. If they choose to leave the money in the org, fine and that builds up a body of cash for investment and lessens business competition with individuals for loan dollars.

I was thinking that too. I'd be for that. However, you'd have to have some very strict rules separating the business money from individual money. That would have to apply to individual owned businesses as well (if the business isn't going to be taxed) including farms, etc.

That could be pretty messy and could yield some complex rules itself. For example, let's say the farmer wants almost everything he buys to be part of his business. He could game the system that way. Then of course any time he sold any of that stuff it would be the business's money not his personal money but you could see how tricky that could get.

In addition, the individual business owner could keep all assets in the business until he actually needs it for personal use. That would give him the advantage of deferring taxes - something a non-business owner can only do with retirement money.


Basically, no matter how simple you try to make it, tax laws are necessarily going to be complex because there are people trying to game the system and use any loophole they can find. Even the simplest of ideas have loopholes - maybe even much larger loopholes than some complex systems.

[KantoSooner]

oh, there'd no doubt be loopholes. But the principle that the simpler things are, the less razzmatazz can be pulled off still holds. And the most regressive thing I've ever seen in a tax code in my life is the sheer complexity in ours. If you've got bucks, you simply hire a Temple Priest (CPA) to set you up correctly and your taxes magically crater to next to nothing.
In both theory and practice this is horribly corrosive to the faith of the great unwashed in the 'fairness' of the system and, in stark point of fact creates objective unfairness.

Most people are comfortable with variable outcomes in life. Most people have childhood friends who've gone on to be rich and others who've cratered and are bums. That's life. What is not acceptable over the long haul is a fundamentally unfair system. And ours is getting along to being pretty damned unfair.

[Midtowner]

I just don't buy that Congress would ever allow such a systemic overhaul of the Revenue Code. It ain't gonna happen. Folks can campaign on whatever it is they want to campaign on, but at the end of the day, it don't amount to a hill 'o beans so long as there's not massive public agreement on what the tax code should be (and let me just say that if it's not something that's progressive then you might as well forget about that) and what it shouldn't be.

Tax reform sounds wonderful as long as we're doing it on someone else's back. Maybe corporate tax reform would be possible--a lower marginal rate with the removal of all the loopholes. You'd need a Constitutional Amendment to close off those loopholes because soon as no one's looking, the lobbyists would be seeing them attached as riders to completely unrelated bills and go right back into the code.

[KantoSooner]

Oh, you're absolutely right that it's castles in the air so far actually happening.

But, once you get your mind around the stark fact that it's utterly insane, totally unfair and enforced by a bunch of thugs with the morals of jackals, then it gets much easier to jump right in and avail onself of any and everything you can. An intellectual game, it becomes: can I reduce my taxes to zero? Why should I care about the system, anyway? it's all ****ed up and will never be fixed in any rational way.

See where that goes?

I'll hold out. Maybe some lifetime....

[Soonerjeepman]

I am not sure this will be as bad as it looks. It appears a lot of these groups were setting up 501 C 4 for political activity. My guess is that the set up of all the Tea Party
501 C 4 were directed and they were poorly informed on how to run them. This looks like a boiler plate set up and form and get these groups active. If I were testifying before Congress I would go on the offense and tell them they created this nightmare and now they need to fix it.

I think this article has it right:

http://business.time.com/2013/05/14/the-irs-was-wrong-but-many-political-groups-should-not-be-tax-exempt/

DD, I have respect for you, but did you see the article in TWJ (I believe there was a thread on it) about how this started in 08? I think there is more to it. Are you really that much of an Obama supporter that much that you even have suspicions?

[diverdog]

DD, I have respect for you, but did you see the article in TWJ (I believe there was a thread on it) about how this started in 08? I think there is more to it. Are you really that much of an Obama supporter that much that you even have suspicions?

Jeep:

Both parties have their opposition research and dirty tricks teams working 24/7. It is the nature of the game. The Dems attack donors and the Republicans attack unions. Kind of a smaller version of the Game of Thrones.

[Midtowner]

Jeep:

Both parties have their opposition research and dirty tricks teams working 24/7. It is the nature of the game. The Dems attack donors and the Republicans attack unions. Kind of a smaller version of the Game of Thrones.

Slightly less killing, torture, etc. is involved..

[olevetonahill]

Jeep:

Both parties have their opposition research and dirty tricks teams working 24/7.
It is the nature of the game. The Dems attack donors and the Republicans attack unions. Kind of a smaller version of the Game of Thrones.

See DD this shouldnt be a GAME . This is LIFE and our Country. No Game, No Tricks, Just do whats right for the US of A

[sappstuf]

Or how about the IRS was flooded with applications from Tea Party groups which didn't seem to fit 501(c)(4) criteria and therefore when they saw other Tea party groups apply, they gave a little extra scrutiny?

Please check facts before you post. The groups applying for 501(c)(4) actually dropped from 2009 to 2010(1751 to 1735). There was no flood that started all of this and it wasn't the reason. You can educate yourself by actually reading the IG report.

http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.html#background

[diverdog]

See DD this shouldnt be a GAME . This is LIFE and our Country. No Game, No Tricks, Just do whats right for the US of A

When is that ever really a consideration?

[olevetonahill]

When is that ever really a consideration?

Dint say it was, Said it Should be.

[diverdog]

Dint say it was, Said it Should be.

Agreed.

[sappstuf]

This is an experiment.

Organizing for Action isn’t like any other organization. It’s based in Chicago, not Washington, and its task is to help restore the balance of power in government.

We’ve seen that a bottom-up movement of passionate people can still win an election in the era of big campaign spending. That’s not what this is about.

Organizing for Action is about discovering whether ordinary people can reclaim the process of legislating from special-interest groups and lobbyists, and help give your friends and neighbors the voice they deserve in Washington.

This project needs your support — I’m counting on you to be there for the fights ahead.

Say you’re in today:

http://my.barackobama.com/Are-You-In

Let’s finish what we started.

Thanks,

Barack

Organizing for Action is a 501(c)(4) organization sending an email from Barack.... I doubt they recieved any questionaire asking for their donors from the IRS....

[Midtowner]

Please check facts before you post. The groups applying for 501(c)(4) actually dropped from 2009 to 2010(1751 to 1735). There was no flood that started all of this and it wasn't the reason. You can educate yourself by actually reading the IG report.

http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.html#background

You're talking about total applications, not applications from Tea Party or "patriot" groups.

Considering many act like the Sooner Tea Party, which has allegedly gone beyond the pale in terms of its activities, a lot of 501c4 apps probably should be scrutinized when it's for Tea Party groups.

[sappstuf]

You're talking about total applications, not applications from Tea Party or "patriot" groups.

Considering many act like the Sooner Tea Party, which has allegedly gone beyond the pale in terms of its activities, a lot of 501c4 apps probably should be scrutinized when it's for Tea Party groups.

Do you think applications from Lefty groups just dropped off the map? Do you think Barack is going beyond the pale in the email above? I doubt Barack was asked who his donors were or what the content of his prayers were...

Once again you are fighting against facts. The IRS has already admitted to targeting targeting conservative groups. If there were criteria for all 501c4 to get special attention after Citizen's United, they would have released it to clear themselves.

What they instead is admit to the wrongdoing.

[sappstuf]

You're talking about total applications, not applications from Tea Party or "patriot" groups.

Considering many act like the Sooner Tea Party, which has allegedly gone beyond the pale in terms of its activities, a lot of 501c4 apps probably should be scrutinized when it's for Tea Party groups.

The IG found 296 cases of potential abuse. Guess how many were denied?

None. Not one.

[Midtowner]

The IG found 296 cases of potential abuse. Guess how many were denied?

None. Not one.

So they got some extra scrutiny because something looked fishy and none were denied.

I'm struggling to see the scandal here.

[olevetonahill]

So they got some extra scrutiny because something looked fishy and none were denied.

I'm struggling to see the scandal here.

I'll bet you wouldnt have seen a Problem with Watergate either.

[sappstuf]

So they got some extra scrutiny because something looked fishy and none were denied.

I'm struggling to see the scandal here.

I'm struggling to think of a worst case of willful ignorance...

[Midtowner]

I'll bet you wouldnt have seen a Problem with Watergate either.

That's a lot different. This was the IRS doing its job--scrutinizing apps for tax exempt status.

Watergate was a burglary of a psychiatrist's office to uncover records to discredit someone who had leaked some very important documents to the media.

[olevetonahill]

That's a lot different. This was the IRS doing its job--scrutinizing apps for tax exempt status.

Watergate was a burglary of a psychiatrist's office to uncover records to discredit someone who had leaked some very important documents to the media.

Please tell me you are not that simple minded.This IRS deal was an attempt by the Current Administration to dig dirt, Guess what it backfired Now they are trying to cover up and hide their actions, Much like watergate.

Dude Its OK you can admit that the Dems aint all lily white and innocent and still condemn The Pubs.

[Midtowner]

Please tell me you are not that simple minded.This IRS deal was an attempt by the Current Administration to dig dirt, Guess what it backfired Now they are trying to cover up and hide their actions, Much like watergate.

Dude Its OK you can admit that the Dems aint all lily white and innocent and still condemn The Pubs.

There's no evidence to suggest that. Mere supposition.

[KantoSooner]

While you're technically right, you've got to admit that, with each and every day, the parallels become stronger and stronger. In the beginning, Watergate was a little nothing.
If Obama wants to survive, he needs to start throwing bodies under the bus NOW and keep doing so until nobody who even arguably was involved is left alive.
It's a pity, but politics is a contact sport.

[Midtowner]

While you're technically right, you've got to admit that, with each and every day, the parallels become stronger and stronger.

At the end of the day, I think all we'll have is a few mid-level bureaucrats who got suspicious of Tea Party groups and their tax exempt status and their creators' intent. I think that concern has been shown to be pretty valid with at least one local Tea Party group whose leader, in his capacity as the head of the Sooner Tea Party allegedly blackmailed a state senator regarding his support of legislation to fight UN Agenda 21.


In the beginning, Watergate was a little nothing.

It was a burglary with high ranking White House officials actually committing an act of burglary and with the knowledge of the President.

I think that's a trifle more severe.

[olevetonahill]

There's no evidence to suggest that. Mere supposition.

No evidence to "Suggest" that? again I ask are you really this simple minded? If so I will quit pickin on you , Its not right to bully the mentally challenged.
If there is No reason to suggest it why then has it been in the news forever? Why did that broad Plead the 5th?
get real


While you're technically right, you've got to admit that, with each and every day, the parallels become stronger and stronger. In the beginning, Watergate was a little nothing.
If Obama wants to survive, he needs to start throwing bodies under the bus NOW and keep doing so until nobody who even arguably was involved is left alive.
It's a pity, but politics is a contact sport.

Kanto, I agree, I think however its a bit too late for Obama to throw every one under the bus now, He had his opportunity and let it pass. he can still do so. But he will pay a price now that he might not have had to pay a couple of weeks ago.

[olevetonahill]

That's a lot different. This was the IRS doing its job--scrutinizing apps for tax exempt status.


Watergate was a burglary of a psychiatrist's office to uncover records to discredit someone who had leaked some very important documents to the media.


At the end of the day, I think all we'll have is a few mid-level bureaucrats who got suspicious of Tea Party groups and their tax exempt status and their creators' intent. I think that concern has been shown to be pretty valid with at least one local Tea Party group whose leader, in his capacity as the head of the Sooner Tea Party allegedly blackmailed a state senator regarding his support of legislation to fight UN Agenda 21.




It was a burglary with high ranking White House officials actually committing an act of burglary and with the knowledge of the President.

I think that's a trifle more severe.

Boy get yer facts straight before you go running your mouth. Watergate was the Burglary of the DNC offices not a shrink, Heres yer Burglars, They were Not any part of the white house staff.

Watergate Burglars

There were 5 burglars arrested on June 17, 1972 at the Watergate offices of the Democratic National Committee.
Watergate Burglars

Bernard L. Barker – a realtor from Miami, Florida. Former Central Intelligence Agency operative. Barker was said to have been involved in the Bay of Pigs incident in 1962.

Virgilio R. Gonzales – a locksmith from Miami, Florida. Gonzalez was a refugee from Cuba, following Castro’s takeover.

James W. McCord – a security co-ordinator for the Republican National Committee and the Committee for the Re-election of the President. McCord was also a former FBI and CIA agent. He was dismissed from his RNC and CREEP positions the day after the break-in.

Eugenio R. Martinez – worked for Barker’s Miami real estate firm. He had CIA connections and was an anti-Castro Cuban exile. Click here to read Martinez’s account of the burglary.

Frank A. Sturgis – another associate of Barker from Miami, he also had CIA
connections and involvement in anti-Castro activities.

The five men were charged with attempted burglary and attempted interception of telephone and other communications.

The burglars were indicted by a Grand Jury on September 15, as were:

G. Gordon Liddy – from Washington, counsel to the Finance Committee to Re-elect the President, a former FBI agent, former Treasury official, and former member of the White House staff. During the investigation, Liddy refused to answer questions and was fired from his job.

E Howard Hunt Jr. – from Washington, a former White House consultant and CIA employee. Hunt was a writer of espionage novels and had worked on declassifying the Pentagon Papers.

[sappstuf]

At the end of the day, I think all we'll have is a few mid-level bureaucrats who got suspicious of Tea Party groups and their tax exempt status and their creators' intent. I think that concern has been shown to be pretty valid with at least one local Tea Party group whose leader, in his capacity as the head of the Sooner Tea Party allegedly blackmailed a state senator regarding his support of legislation to fight UN Agenda 21.



It was a burglary with high ranking White House officials actually committing an act of burglary and with the knowledge of the President.

I think that's a trifle more severe.

We already have a high-level bureaucrat pleading the 5th...

You keep wearing that ignorance like a badge of honor.

[Midtowner]

No evidence to "Suggest" that? again I ask are you really this simple minded? If so I will quit pickin on you , Its not right to bully the mentally challenged.
If there is No reason to suggest it why then has it been in the news forever? Why did that broad Plead the 5th?
get real

Rube, you ignorant twat, strictly speaking, an assertion of the Fifth Amendment is nothing more than a vacuum of evidence. Sure, in a civil trial, it can be inferred that your answer would be harmful to your case, but this isn't court. We don't know what activity she is refusing to discuss or even if there was questionable activity. Just that she went in there and stonewalled. If anyone really believes this will go any higher than she, the Attorney General (and maybe or maybe not Congress) can give her immunity from prosecution, which would remove her ability to stonewall. Whether that would be forthcoming from Holder is yet to be seen, but the House would sure put him in a pickle if they requested it.

Here's some stuff on congressional grants of immunity:

http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/pdf/95-6/Volokh.PDF

[olevetonahill]

Rube, you ignorant twat, strictly speaking, an assertion of the Fifth Amendment is nothing more than a vacuum of evidence. Sure, in a civil trial, it can be inferred that your answer would be harmful to your case, but this isn't court. We don't know what activity she is refusing to discuss or even if there was questionable activity. Just that she went in there and stonewalled. If anyone really believes this will go any higher than she, the Attorney General (and maybe or maybe not Congress) can give her immunity from prosecution, which would remove her ability to stonewall. Whether that would be forthcoming from Holder is yet to be seen, but the House would sure put him in a pickle if they requested it.

Here's some stuff on congressional grants of immunity:

http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/pdf/95-6/Volokh.PDF

So you are placing your entire argument on the premise that Congress can give the bitch immunity and all will be told? You really are a Simpleton.

[KantoSooner]

Mid, when a tie occurs in sports, you can generally tell who should have won by watching the reaction. One team is psyched with the tie, the other is bummed. The bummer team should have won, and they know it.

Likewise in law and politics or debate: that team which is citing rules and parsing laws most cleverly? They're the ones who are guilty. Not 100% reliable, but it'll get you further than you might think.

[sappstuf]

Rube, you ignorant twat, strictly speaking, an assertion of the Fifth Amendment is nothing more than a vacuum of evidence. Sure, in a civil trial, it can be inferred that your answer would be harmful to your case, but this isn't court. We don't know what activity she is refusing to discuss or even if there was questionable activity. Just that she went in there and stonewalled. If anyone really believes this will go any higher than she, the Attorney General (and maybe or maybe not Congress) can give her immunity from prosecution, which would remove her ability to stonewall. Whether that would be forthcoming from Holder is yet to be seen, but the House would sure put him in a pickle if they requested it.

Here's some stuff on congressional grants of immunity:

http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/pdf/95-6/Volokh.PDF

No, she went before congress and testified. When evidence was uncovered that showed she may have been lying to Congress she was called back.

She then pleaded the 5th.

[Midtowner]

So you are placing your entire argument on the premise that Congress can give the bitch immunity and all will be told? You really are a Simpleton.

They could then hold her in contempt.

That typically has an effect.

[olevetonahill]

They could then hold her in contempt.

That typically has an effect.

Kinda like it had a great effect on that broad in the Clintons White water deal?

[rock on sooner]

No evidence to "Suggest" that? again I ask are you really this simple minded? If so I will quit pickin on you , Its not right to bully the mentally challenged.
If there is No reason to suggest it why then has it been in the news forever? Why did that broad Plead the 5th?
get real



Kanto, I agree, I think however its a bit too late for Obama to throw every one under the bus now, He had his opportunity and let it pass. he can still do so. But he will pay a price now that he might not have had to pay a couple of weeks ago.

I'm not sure that Obama's price to pay is a lot at this point, mostly
because I think the three offices' heads, plus a bunch of lower level
folks in each of those offices are gonna take the heat. What's happening
to the Prez is likely to be more of the same from the GOP...stonewalling
everything he tries to do. That is a big price but he was stuck with that
before this IRS stuff came along anyhow.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

This goes all the way to the top. They can't obfuscate that. There will be impeachment proceedings based on this. And because of Holdergate, the press will not be as charitable and it may even stick!

[rock on sooner]

This goes all the way to the top. They can't obfuscate that. There will be impeachment proceedings based on this. And because of Holdergate, the press will not be as charitable and it may even stick!
I don't think impeachment will happen, but if it does, it won't be
until after 2014, and then only if the GOP controls the Senate...

[Midtowner]

This goes all the way to the top.

Wishes 'n rainbows don't amount to evidence. Someone took the Fifth Amendment to avoid self incrimination. Even assuming she would implicate herself in criminal activity, there's no evidence to suggest there's even anyone above this lady who had any knowledge of this. There's nothing to obfuscate and there's even a question as to whether anything illegal happened. Just like Benghazi, you're so hot to trot that you're reaching ridiculous conclusions before the facts are in or before you know whether the facts will ever be in.

[olevetonahill]

I'm not sure that Obama's price to pay is a lot at this point, mostly
because I think the three offices' heads, plus a bunch of lower level
folks in each of those offices are gonna take the heat. What's happening
to the Prez is likely to be more of the same from the GOP...stonewalling
everything he tries to do. That is a big price but he was stuck with that
before this IRS stuff came along anyhow.

Thats what Im talking about, hes going to pay a bigger Political price than he would have had he handled this in a straight forward manner.

[olevetonahill]

I don't think impeachment will happen, but if it does, it won't be
until after 2014, and then only if the GOP controls the Senate...

Im with you again Rock, very doubtful impeachment even gets Much mention, Like I said those he is going to lose a lot of political capital.

[Soonerjeepman]

Jeep:

Both parties have their opposition research and dirty tricks teams working 24/7. It is the nature of the game. The Dems attack donors and the Republicans attack unions. Kind of a smaller version of the Game of Thrones.

I understand, so your saying the WSJ is making facts up? ..not saying you said that..asking. My premise was you seem to honestly believe that this wasn't a intentional call by the dem party...as high up as ya want and I believe it was a calculated attack, which is not right...by EITHER party.

Honest question, has there been this much scrutiny by the IRS with a pub pres in power?

[Soonerjeepman]

whether the facts will ever be in.

BINGO....with obammy in office I'd bet nope~

heaven forbid we hold accountable a president who is non-euro decent for fear of being labeled a racists....couldn't stand Gore either...what's his ethnic background, maybe there is a connection?

[cleller]

obfuscate

This is the most interesting word I've seen in a few days. Until someone one up's it, I think you win the argument.

[KantoSooner]

I can think of ways to use adumbrate.

Work?

[olevetonahill]

I can think of ways to use adumbrate.

Work?

I still wanta Defenestrate matlock.

[diverdog]

I understand, so your saying the WSJ is making facts up? ..not saying you said that..asking. My premise was you seem to honestly believe that this wasn't a intentional call by the dem party...as high up as ya want and I believe it was a calculated attack, which is not right...by EITHER party.

Honest question, has there been this much scrutiny by the IRS with a pub pres in power?

Jeep:

It is an opinion piece by a person that sits on an editorial board controlled by Murdock. Not exactly objective or balanced.

[rock on sooner]

I still wanta Defenestrate matlock.

Do that mean there'd be no more Matlocks?

[olevetonahill]

Do that mean there'd be no more Matlocks?

Only if we were moren 2 floors up.

[Midtowner]

BINGO....with obammy in office I'd bet nope~

heaven forbid we hold accountable a president who is non-euro decent for fear of being labeled a racists....couldn't stand Gore either...what's his ethnic background, maybe there is a connection?

Hold him accountable for what? All you have are a bunch of guessy assumptions where you simply assume the worst possible set of facts for the President MUST be true based on absolutely nothing but your hope that he's as bad as you want him to be.

[olevetonahill]

Hold him accountable for what? All you have are a bunch of guessy assumptions where you simply assume the worst possible set of facts for the President MUST be true based on absolutely nothing but your hope that he's as bad as you want him to be.

matlock, you should quit while your behind, Hell you started spouting off about Watergate yesterday and I handed you your *** on that subject, you never responded after that. Now here you go again today spoutin your ignorance again

read this

Breaking: OBAMA IRS SCANDAL WIDENS – Conservative Activists and Businesses Targeted, Too …Update: 90 IRS Employees Involved

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/05/breaking-obama-irs-scandal-widens-conservative-activists-and-businesses-targeted-too/

No I dont Know or care who this writer is Nor do I know anything about who he /she writes for. But if Yahoo news is running it it has to be semi Lib .

[Midtowner]

Breaking: OBAMA IRS SCANDAL WIDENS – Conservative Activists and Businesses Targeted, Too …Update: 90 IRS Employees Involved

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/05/breaking-obama-irs-scandal-widens-conservative-activists-and-businesses-targeted-too/

No I dont Know or care who this writer is Nor do I know anything about who he /she writes for. But if Yahoo news is running it it has to be semi Lib .

None of that shows any evidence that the bad actors were anywhere but the IRS.

[olevetonahill]

None of that shows any evidence that the bad actors were anywhere but the IRS.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQUE6af4qLWUFiablU0-5Zb3Y3NIF4OXo06yiXJZjfSWD_LxntV0Q

[TAFBSooner]

Obama has a very simple, two-word defense against impeachment.

Joe Biden

[sappstuf]

Some of the Cincinnati IRS agents have been questioned... Sounds like they knew they were being set up for a fall while being micromanaged by DC. One even asked for a job transfer....


Q: So what do you think about this, that allegation has been made, I think as you have seen in lots of press reports, that there were two rogue agents in Cincinnati that are sort of responsible for all of the issues that we have been talking about today. What do you think about those allegations?
[…]
A: It’s impossible. As an agent we are controlled by many, many people. We have to submit many, many reports. So the chance of two agents being rogue and doing things like that could never happen.

Q: But you specifically recall that the BOLO terms included “Tea Party?”
A: Yes, I do.
Q: And it was your understanding ‑‑ was it your understanding that the purpose of the BOLO was to identify Tea Party groups?
A: That is correct.
Q: Was it your understanding that the purpose of the BOLO was to identify conservative groups?
A: Yes, it was.
Q: Was it your understanding that the purpose of the BOLO was to identify Republican groups?
A: Yes, it was.

Q: Earlier I believe you informed us that the primary reason for applying for another job in July [2010] was because of the micromanagement from [Washington, DC, IRS Attorney], is that correct?
A: Right. It was the whole Tea Party. It was the whole picture. I mean, it was the micromanagement. The fact that the subject area was extremely sensitive and it was something that I didn’t want to be associated with.
Q: Why didn’t you want to be associated with it?
A: For what happened now. I mean, rogue agent? Even though I was taking all my direction from EO Technical [Washington, D.C], I didn’t want my name in the paper for being this rogue agent for a project I had no control over.
Q: Did you think there was something inappropriate about what was happening in 2010?
A: Yes. The inappropriateness was not processing these applications fairly and timely.

******

Q: You have stated you had concerns with the fairness and the timeliness of the application process. Did you have concerns with just the fact that these cases were grouped together and you were the only one handling them?
A: I was the only one handling the Tea Party’s, that is correct.
Q: Did that specifically cause you concern?
A: Yes, it did. And I was the only person handling them.
Q: Were you concerned that you didn’t have the capacity to process all of the applications in a timely manner?
A: That is correct. And it is just ‑‑ I mean, like you brought up, the micromanagement, the fact that the topic was just weirdly handled was a huge concern to me.

Those "rogue" agents in Cincinnati aren't going to take this lying down. That is good. It will push the pressure up the chain of command where it belongs. Just how far is what we need to find out.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Those "rogue" agents in Cincinnati aren't going to take this lying down. That is good. It will push the pressure up the chain of command where it belongs. Just how far is what we need to find out.It CAN'T be the Aministration. That would be unethical!(to say the least)

[cleller]

This morning I saw a story about the IRS spending $50 Million over 2 years for conferences. Presidential suites, the usual stuff.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57587245/house-oversight-panel-watchdog-report-shows-excessive-irs-conference-spending/

[sappstuf]

It CAN'T be the Aministration. That would be unethical!(to say the least)

Here is a line of questioning that IRS HQ in Washington DC was asking for specific cases:


Q: Did anyone else ever make a request that you send any cases to Washington?
A: [Different IRS employee] wanted to have two cases that she couldn’t ‑‑ Washington, D.C. wanted them, but she couldn’t find the paper. So she requested me, through an email, to find these cases for her and to send them to Washington, D.C.
Q: When was this, what time frame?
A: I don’t recall the time frame, maybe May of 2010.

******

Q: But just to be clear, she told you the specific names of these applicants.
A: Yes.
Q: And she told you that Washington, D.C. had requested these two specific applications be sent to D.C.
A: Yes, or parts of them.

******

Q: Okay. So she asked you to send particular parts of these applications.
A: Mm‑hmm.
Q: And that was unusual. Did you say that?
A: Yes.
Q: And she indicated that Washington had requested these specific parts of these specific applications; is that right?
A: Correct.

So.. How did the person in Washington DC know the names of specific applications in DC if this was being handled by "low-level" employees?

Where did that information come from?

[Midtowner]

I will say this--if any evidence does come out that this is linked to Obama, he should be impeached and removed from office. The trouble about what many here are expressing is that they simply assume that since something bad has occurred, Obama must necessarily be at the root of it and there must have been some malfeasance on the part of the White House. There hasn't been a shred of evidence so far to prove that.

[KantoSooner]

I would sincerely doubt if Obama had any particular knowledge of this. One of the reasons people build staffs as they ascend in life is to keep a distance from stuff like this. Now, a Rahm Emmanuel? A Leon Panetta? Pick Name At Random From Senior Staff? Oh yeah. And, if they're caught, they fall on their sword, maybe do a little time, maybe just go write a book. Worst case have to step aside and take a 'job' running a 'think tank' for a coupla bills a year plus some tasty speaking gigs.
If they're Democrats, they go on to become professors. If they're Republicans, they go on to find Jesus and start a lucrative radio talk show.
But they don't ever implicate the boss.
It's the new Praetorian Guard.

[Midtowner]

Yup. It wouldn't shock me if Rahm was involved. Panetta? That'd surprise me.

[KantoSooner]

He was used more as an example than as a formal candidate.

[sappstuf]

I would sincerely doubt if Obama had any particular knowledge of this. One of the reasons people build staffs as they ascend in life is to keep a distance from stuff like this. Now, a Rahm Emmanuel? A Leon Panetta? Pick Name At Random From Senior Staff? Oh yeah. And, if they're caught, they fall on their sword, maybe do a little time, maybe just go write a book. Worst case have to step aside and take a 'job' running a 'think tank' for a coupla bills a year plus some tasty speaking gigs.
If they're Democrats, they go on to become professors. If they're Republicans, they go on to find Jesus and start a lucrative radio talk show.
But they don't ever implicate the boss.
It's the new Praetorian Guard.

That is what is interesting about Lerner. As head of the Tax exempt section, she is certainly high enough to know from who the orders were coming from, but she might not be high enough to fall on her sword.

She was asked to resign and refused, so she was put on administrative leave. She may feel she did nothing wrong because she was just following orders.. The question then becomes who was giving her the orders.

The missing 18 minutes will lay it all out....

[TitoMorelli]

Just read that Shulman's wife was active in the Occupy movement. wtf was Bush thinking in naming this guy to be the IRS Commissioner?

[Soonerjeepman]

and now the 50$ million spent on conferences...good grief.

These leaders...Werfel...isn't answering $HIT....geeze.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Just read that Shulman's wife was active in the Occupy movement. wtf was Bush thinking in naming this guy to be the IRS Commissioner?Prolly Bush didn't worry about it. Didn't the Occupy thing start after Bush left office? Ina any case, he didn't seem to view the Leftists for what they are.

[sappstuf]

So we have heard that there are currently 88 IRS employees that are under investigation. We now know a couple of names:


Those documents, provided by an IRS employee who asked to remain anonymous, indicates that those being asked to provide computer data to investigators include the agency’s chief counsel, William J. Wilkins, and both of his deputies.

The IRS is supposed to be an apolitical organization. In fact, there are only 2 political appointees in the entire IRS. William J Wilkins, the chief counsel, is one of them..


In all, the hard drives of 19 lawyers in the chief counsel’s office are being turned over to investigators.

19 in Obama's political appointee's office??

My, my..

[sappstuf]

A woman testifying at the IRS hearing about how her Tea Party applied for tax exempt status and it took 19 months for the IRS to reply.... When they did reply it was with 35 items divided into 80 subpoints of inquiry. They were given 20 days to comply. The lady finally gave trying to get the tax free status.

CR8QTHbIVDE

Oddly, the Dems on the panel have not been able to come up with a single liberal group that was treated in such a manner..

The most amusing part is that the president is doing a live conference on judges..... Anything to divert attention from what his administration was doing.

[Midtowner]

Oddly, the Dems on the panel have not been able to come up with a single liberal group that was treated in such a manner..

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/irs-targeted-naacp-in-2004-91284.html

There's one...

[Curly Bill]

Just read that Shulman's wife was active in the Occupy movement. wtf was Bush thinking in naming this guy to be the IRS Commissioner?

Bush was a dumas!

....but I guess that's better than the outright criminality we have now.

[XingTheRubicon]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/irs-targeted-naacp-in-2004-91284.html

There's one...

Then why didn't they mention that one...oh yeah, it's completely irrelevant.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/irs-targeted-naacp-in-2004-91284.html

There's one...

Wow ! You dare to equate what the NAALCP went through to prove they weren't politically active when we all know they are to the outright felonious activity currently going on? Wow !

[sappstuf]

A great political timeline of what Obama and Dems were doing in the summer of 2010. Remember, from the inspector general's report the first BOLO(Be On the Lookout) list from the IRS came in August of 2010..

What else happened in August of 2010?


Aug. 9, 2010: In Texas, President Obama for the first time publicly names a group he is obsessed with—Americans for Prosperity (founded by the Koch Brothers)—and warns about conservative groups. Taking up a cry that had until then largely been confined to left-wing media and activists, he says: "Right now all around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads . . . And they don't have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation."

Aug. 11: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sends out a fundraising email warning about "Karl Rove-inspired shadow groups."

Aug. 21: Mr. Obama devotes his weekly radio address to the threat of "attack ads run by shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names. We don't know who's behind these ads and we don't know who's paying for them. . . . You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation. . . . The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide."

Week of Aug. 23: The New Yorker's Jane Mayer authors a hit piece on the Koch brothers, entitled "Covert Operations," in which she accuses them of funding "political front groups." The piece repeats the White House theme, with Ms. Mayer claiming the Kochs have created "slippery organizations with generic-sounding names" that have "made it difficult to ascertain the extent of their influence in Washington."

Aug. 27: White House economist Austan Goolsbee, in a background briefing with reporters, accuses Koch industries of being a pass-through entity that does "not pay corporate income tax." The Treasury inspector general investigates how it is that Mr. Goolsbee might have confidential tax information. The report has never been released.

This same week, the Democratic Party files a complaint with the IRS claiming the Americans for Prosperity Foundation is violating its tax-exempt status.

Sept. 2: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee warns on its website that the Kochs have "funneled their money into right-wing shadow groups."

Sept. 16: Mr. Obama, in Connecticut, repeats that a "foreign-controlled entity" might be funding "millions of dollars of attack ads." Four days later, in Philadelphia, he again says the problem is that "nobody knows" who is behind conservative groups.

Sept. 21: Sam Stein, in his Huffington Post article "Obama, Dems Try to Make Shadowy Conservative Groups a Problem for Conservatives," writes that a "senior administration official" had "urged a small gathering of reporters to start writing on what he deemed 'the most insidious power grab that we have seen in a very long time.' "

Sept. 22: In New York City, Mr. Obama warns that conservative groups "pose as non-for-profit, social welfare and trade groups," even though they are "guided by seasoned Republican political operatives" who might be funded by a "foreign-controlled corporation."

Sept. 26: On ABC's "This Week," Obama senior adviser David Axelrod declares outright that the "benign-sounding Americans for Prosperity, the American Crossroads Fund" are "front groups for foreign-controlled companies."

Sept. 28: The president, in Wisconsin, again warns about conservative organizations "posing as nonprofit groups." Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, writes to the IRS demanding it investigate nonprofits. The letter names conservative organizations.

On Oct. 14, Mr. Obama calls these groups "a problem for democracy." On Oct. 22, he slams those who "hide behind these front groups." On Oct. 25, he upgrades them to a "threat to our democracy." On Oct. 26, he decries groups engaged in "unsupervised spending."

Is it any wonder that those low-level employees are now testifying that they took their orders directly from DC... It is because that is exactly what happened.

[Soonerjeepman]

the problem is the low knowledge voters don't GAS, they got what they want.