IRS Targeted Conservative Groups

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Anonymous Cincinnati IRS official: “Everything comes from the top.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...93c60e-bd81-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_print.html

As could be expected, the folks in the determinations unit on Main Street have had trouble concentrating this week. Number crunchers, whose work is nonpolitical, don’t necessarily enjoy the spotlight, especially when the media and the public assume they’re engaged in partisan villainy.

“We’re not political,’’ said one determinations staffer in khakis as he left work late Tuesday afternoon. “We people on the local level are doing what we are supposed to do. . . . That’s why there are so many people here who are flustered. Everything comes from the top. We don’t have any authority to make those decisions without someone signing off on them. There has to be a directive.”

The staff member, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of losing his job, said that the determinations unit is competent and without bias, that it grouped together conservative applications “for consistency’s sake” — so one application did not sail through while a similar one was held up in review. This consistency is paramount in the review of all applications, according to Ronald Ran, an estate-tax lawyer who worked for 37 years in the IRS’s Cincinnati office.
 
I see $1.5 million, but nothing about a billion. You made that number up.

You ignored the $970B figure. Like an ostrich with its head in the sand. So be it. Look like a fool.
 
You ignored the $970B figure. Like an ostrich with its head in the sand. So be it. Look like a fool.

You said Tea Party groups raised over $1b, you've yet to link it, yet you're calling me a fool.

Classic.
 
You ignored the $970B figure. Like an ostrich with its head in the sand. So be it. Look like a fool.

I honestly don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I see nothing about $970b in your excerpt or in your article.
 
Time for a special prosecutor to get the two Treasury officials under oath...

The Internal Revenue Service scandal may be the worst of all the current Obama administration fiascoes. It is an easily understood gross misuse of the powers of government to target opponents of the president. What is more, the administration’s supplicants in the lefty punditocracy can no longer claim this is just an IRS scandal.

The Post reports:

J. Russell George, the Treasury Department’s top tax watchdog, said Friday he had informed top Treasury officials starting last spring about problems related to the special attention the agency was paying some conservative organizations seeking tax-exempt status. George said he shared the information with the Treasury’s general counsel in June and with Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal S. Wolin “shortly thereafter.”

Are we to believe, with allegations of IRS harassment swirling in the media, that these two officials nodded, returned to their offices and told no one? If so, they are guilty of suppressing a huge scandal in an election year. But let’s get real. Upon hearing this information, it is almost inconceivable that they unilaterally decided to remain mum. Both of these officials must be required to answer questions under oath. If they do not, an independent prosecutor would be essential.


But we may not need to wait for that. ABC News reports:

Tea partiers say the lengthy questionnaires, some of them 30 questions long, cost them hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars as they sent stacks of paperwork to the IRS and were held in legal limbo for years, uncertain of what activities they could pursue, and cut off from skeptical donors scared away by their pending status.

“This is not only unconstitutional, it is illegal,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative civil-rights group that says it is suing the IRS..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...reasury-connection-not-merely-an-irs-scandal/
.
 
I honestly don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I see nothing about $970b in your excerpt or in your article.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/11/most-expensive-election-history-numbers/58745/

$970 million The estimated amount spent by outside groups during the 2012 cycle, according to Federal Election Commission data. "The increase has largely been driven by rapidly increased spending among 'super PACs' and outside groups that can raise unlimited amounts of money from donors," reported The New York Times' Nicholas Confessore.

(I'm handing you a clue, use it... $970M, not $970B).
 
An even better find. $203M spent in just the final 2 months of the campaign by those groups who want to be 501(c)4


http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/31/total-cost-of-election-could-be-6-billion/

While super PACs — political committees that sprang into being after the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling — spent at least $539.4 million through Oct. 31, hundreds of millions of dollars more are being spent below the radar by groups that do not register with the Federal Election Commission and purport to focus on educational, not political, activities. Such groups spent at least $203 million in the last two months, a window during which federal law requires formal disclosure of any expenditures that mention a candidate, and they spent even more earlier in the campaign cycle, on “issue ads” that are not subject to disclosure. Measured merely by the spending that is disclosed, three of the top six outside groups in 2012 are issue groups that are not required to publicly reveal their donors.
 
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/11/most-expensive-election-history-numbers/58745/

$970 million The estimated amount spent by outside groups during the 2012 cycle, according to Federal Election Commission data. "The increase has largely been driven by rapidly increased spending among 'super PACs' and outside groups that can raise unlimited amounts of money from donors," reported The New York Times' Nicholas Confessore.

(I'm handing you a clue, use it... $970M, not $970B).

Yes, and you're assuming that "outside groups" are all Tea Party. It's a ridiculous premise, just as your posts are ridiculous and illogical in this thread.

Are you saying that every dollar of the $970m is from Tea Party groups? Because if you are, then you're an idiot.
 
Yes, and you're assuming that "outside groups" are all Tea Party. It's a ridiculous premise, just as your posts are ridiculous and illogical in this thread.

Are you saying that every dollar of the $970m is from Tea Party groups? Because if you are, then you're an idiot.

Not being 501(c)4 these groups managed to spend $970M. Whatever the IRS did was not harassment, since these groups could raise and spend $970M (an all time record).

It doesn't have to be $970M spent by the tea party groups. They raised and spent as much as they could with or without 501(c)4 status. With or without govt. scrutiny of their 501(c)4 application.

The facts aren't on your side. You can cry "Nixon" till you're blue in the face, but it doesn't make anything reported so far even resemble what Nixon did.

Prove I'm wrong.

You can't.
 
richardnixon-flickrcommons1.jpg
 
Not being 501(c)4 these groups managed to spend $970M. Whatever the IRS did was not harassment, since these groups could raise and spend $970M (an all time record).

It doesn't have to be $970M spent by the tea party groups. They raised and spent as much as they could with or without 501(c)4 status. With or without govt. scrutiny of their 501(c)4 application.

The facts aren't on your side. You can cry "Nixon" till you're blue in the face, but it doesn't make anything reported so far even resemble what Nixon did.

Prove I'm wrong.

You can't.

If some groups were targeted for additional screening, while others were not, based on key words such as "Tea Party" and "Constitution", then yes, that is an abuse of power and selective screening. It violates the 5th Amendment, at the very least, and there are going to be lawsuits, with some already being filed.

You're kind of making a joke of yourself in this thread. It's baffling.
 
I find it funny that Denny decries the lack of "facts" when he first tried to say Tea Party groups raised $1b, and when it turns out that is the total of all SuperPACs, left or right, suddenly the conversation changes again.
 
The tea party groups spent nearly a $billion. To say they were kept from trying to fire Obama is absurd.

Er, well, not really. Every PAC, left, right, or middle, combined for $1b. Why would you assign that number to the Tea Party groups that were targeted? Plus, it's coming out now that many of these Tea Party groups had to pay thousands of dollars to register and have lawyers look at their filings.

Derp
 
Last edited:
I find it funny that Denny decries the lack of "facts" when he first tried to say Tea Party groups raised $1b, and when it turns out that is the total of all SuperPACs, left or right, suddenly the conversation changes again.

Yeah, I mean to say the special interest groups (PACs, etc.) spent $1B. Get your jollies from my mistake, but you're making the real mistake.

I'm looking for some sort of damage done to the groups that wanted to cheat the tax code. I've shown there was none.

I ask you to prove I'm wrong.

You can't.

And it doesn't matter if the left pacs got to spend $250M of the ~$1B. The tea party groups got to raise and spend their share of that. They had to play by the same rules right groups should have. And as if they were scrutinized and denied 51(c)4 status.

I'm looking for the damage done. None.
 
Yeah, I mean to say the special interest groups (PACs, etc.) spent $1B. Get your jollies from my mistake, but you're making the real mistake.

I'm looking for some sort of damage done to the groups that wanted to cheat the tax code. I've shown there was none.

I ask you to prove I'm wrong.

You can't.

And it doesn't matter if the left pacs got to spend $250M of the ~$1B. The tea party groups got to raise and spend their share of that. They had to play by the same rules right groups should have. And as if they were scrutinized and denied 51(c)4 status.

I'm looking for the damage done. None.

Time and money are "damages" in terms of any fundraising efforts. I suggest you read up on what some of these groups had to experience to get tax exempt status, based on discriminatory practices by the IRS. You were wrong and have embarrassed yourself. Now you're just doubling down on stupid. Please stop pretending to be a Libertarian, because you aren't one.

Also, you just made up another number with your $250m attributed to leftist groups. Do you just make up numbers and attribute them to groups to buttress your POV? If so, wow.
 
Last edited:
Time and money are "damages". You were wrong. Now you're just doubling down on stupid. Please stop pretending to be a Libertarian, because you aren't one.

No, you are posting stupid things. Nixon, crimes, damages, blah blah.

What time? What money? Give me amounts. Link to your source.
 
No, you are posting stupid things. Nixon, crimes, damages, blah blah.

What time? What money? Give me amounts. Link to your source.

The lawsuits are starting. I'm not giving specifics, because I don't have them yet. I will need to see the court filings and what damages are sought.

Unlike you, who apparently just makes things up, and looks like a fool in doing so.
 
Please don't ever call yourself a Libertarian again, Denny. You're an embarrassment to true Libertarians.
 
It's very funny that someone caught making things up about $1b and Tea Party groups still tries to play the high road.

First rule of being in a hole ... stop digging.
 
Lol.

You make claims about time and money, but you're talking out your ass.

Link. Prove me wrong.
 
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/19/the_false_nixon_equivalence_118465.html

The False Nixon Equivalence

By Steve Chapman - May 19, 2013

"The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know," said Harry Truman, who made it his task to absorb a lot of it. Many people who have not followed his example are not averse to using what little they do know, with the inadvertent effect of exposing how much they have to learn.

In recent days, those people have triumphantly likened Barack Obama to Richard Nixon, particularly on the misuse of the Internal Revenue Service for political advantage. In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee voted to impeach Nixon because, among other reasons, he tried to cause "income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner."

This, of course, is exactly what the IRS now admits doing when it singled out conservative groups for special scrutiny. The Treasury Department's Inspector General found, "The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions."

The misconduct happened under the current president. Therefore, Obama = Nixon.

But equating the two is like concluding that babies are like poisonous snakes because some of them have rattles. Maybe information will someday emerge to confirm the conservative suspicion that Obama thuggishly subverted the IRS to win re-election, but so far, it falls in the realm of make-believe.

Here is what the 44th president had to say about how the agency should operate: "Americans have a right to be angry about it, and I'm angry about it. It should not matter what political stripe you're from. The fact of the matter is the IRS has to operate with absolute integrity." Obama said this as he announced the dismissal of the acting commissioner for failing to prevent political abuse.

Here is what the 37th president had to say about how the agency should operate: "Are we looking over the financial contributors to the Democratic National Committee? Are we running their income tax returns? ... We have all this power and we aren't using it. Now, what the Christ is the matter?"

Nixon did not have a fetish for maximizing revenue. The point, a memo from the White House counsel helpfully explained, was to "use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies." On multiple occasions, at the behest of the president or his top aides, the IRS was told to audit individuals whose activities created dissatisfaction in the Oval Office.

The chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Lawrence O'Brien, got special attention. One of Nixon's top aides called the commissioner of the IRS and demanded action, hoping to "send him to jail before the elections." Nixon ordered investigations of Democrats who might run against him.

Obama's complaint is that the IRS engaged in unfair treatment of groups that oppose him. Nixon's was that it was reluctant to engage in unfair treatment of those that opposed him.

In 1971, weary of improper pressure, Commissioner Randolph Thrower asked for a meeting with the president to advise him that "the introduction of political influence into the IRS would be very damaging to him and his administration, as well as to the revenue system and the general public interest." Nixon refused to see him.

When another commissioner closed down a unit that was used for political retribution, the president tried repeatedly to fire him -- while griping profanely in private that he, as The New York Times paraphrased, "was prissy about legal procedures."

Not that revenge was Nixon's sole mission. "If harassment of 'enemies' was half the White House strategy, the other half was succor for friends," wrote New York Times reporter J. Anthony Lukas in his book "Nightmare:

The Underside of the Nixon Years." When evangelist Billy Graham and actor John Wayne got audit notices, the president demanded that the IRS back off.

In Nixon's mind, using tax agents as political operatives was not only excusable but exemplary. In the case of Obama, there is no evidence that he or his Treasury Secretary was aware of the mistreatment of conservative groups -- much less that either of them requested it.

Many of his critics nevertheless claim to detect in him a ruthless mendacity unseen in the White House since 1974. The result of this distortion is to highlight not how much Obama resembles Nixon, but how much they do.

//
schapman@tribune.com
 
Cut/paste a Chicago article defending the President.

At least you didn't make stuff up in that post...
 
I've already posted the article in this thread.

You've posted a lot of crap in this thread. You can't prove there were damages. There were no damages.

In fact, the damage was done by letting any political organization have 501(c)4 status. We'll never know if Soros didn't buy the election for Obama. THAT is what people need to know so they can be informed.

I'm not in any way shape or form defending the administration. The IRS acted unethically, but not illegally.

You could play Pin the Fail on the Donkey and win. You choose to play pin nixon on Obama and it's a loser.
 
You've posted a lot of crap in this thread. You can't prove there were damages. There were no damages.

In fact, the damage was done by letting any political organization have 501(c)4 status. We'll never know if Soros didn't buy the election for Obama. THAT is what people need to know so they can be informed.

I'm not in any way shape or form defending the administration. The IRS acted unethically, but not illegally.

You could play Pin the Fail on the Donkey and win. You choose to play pin nixon on Obama and it's a loser.

I'm not looking to claim damages. That's what the lawsuits will be for, and I am merely relaying that info. Then again, I'm not the one excusing obvious political games by the IRS.

It's weird that you are. Do you work for the IRS? Even Dems are coming out against this obvious targeting, but for some weird reason, a so-called "Libertarian" such as yourself is the only one defending obvious discriminatory and biased enforcement of tax exempt groups by the IRS.

Plus, you've lied repeatedly in this thread, have been called out on it, and continue to deflect. I wish I could put you and your lies on ignore, but I can't.
 
Last edited:
I'm not looking to claim damages. That's what the lawsuits will be for, and I am merely relaying that info. Then again, I'm not the one excusing obvious political games by the IRS.

It's weird that you are. Do you work for the IRS? Even Dems are coming out against this obvious targeting, but for some weird reason, a so-called "Libertarian" such as yourself is the only one defending obvious discriminatory and biased enforcement of tax exempt groups by the IRS.

Plus, you've lied repeatedly in this thread, have been called out on it, and continue to deflect. I wish I could put you and your lies on ignore, but I can't.

Bullshit. I did not lie in this thread.

You do understand the difference between unethical and criminal, right?

You are the one defending a hole in the tax code that allows organizations to raise unlimited money and not disclose the donors. You are very much on the wrong side of this, all the way around.

You miss the posts where I said the IRS did something "wrong," and then make up stuff you think I said.
 
You've posted a lot of crap in this thread. You can't prove there were damages. There were no damages.

In fact, the damage was done by letting any political organization have 501(c)4 status. We'll never know if Soros didn't buy the election for Obama. THAT is what people need to know so they can be informed.

I'm not in any way shape or form defending the administration. The IRS acted unethically, but not illegally.

You could play Pin the Fail on the Donkey and win. You choose to play pin nixon on Obama and it's a loser.

Why are you so hung up on the amounts spent? Denny, the issue isn't damage, it's intent. The IRS has to be above reproach. It HAS to treat people and organizations fairly and equally. They didn't. And as the article says, all orders came from above the low level employees currently blamed in the talking points.
 
It would be nice if Denny would read the IG report, but we know that won't happen.

Plus, the leaking of info to Pro Publica is beyond defense.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top