IRS Targeted Conservative Groups

[maxiep]

Hmm, there appears to be a pattern with this woman: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...dium=email&utm_campaign=TWS Weekly Newsletter

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Hmm, there appears to be a pattern with this woman: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...dium=email&utm_campaign=TWS Weekly Newsletter

heres the fucin deal

if you have one of these orgs off running wild..well, its an isolated incident

If you have two or so, you can pass it off as a coicidence

but when you have five, fuck it...thats an agenda. You can not set an agenda without complance, and compliance can not be made with out direction

 

[maxiep]

No big deal. The IRS did their own investigation and then hid the results from Congress...before the 2012 election.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...atives-official-refuses-answer-questions.html

 

[Masbee]

Special Prosecutor more likely after today's evasive (or no) testimony?

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) told IRS officials on the panel that there will be “hell to pay” if they refuse to answer the committee’s questions — a message clearly targeted at Lois Lerner, whose lawyer has said she will plead the Fifth Amendment and not answer questions.

“If you refuse to answer,” Lynch said, “you will leave us no choice but to ask for a special counsel or the appointment of a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of this.”
Lynch added: “I hope that’s not the approach of the IRS going forward, because there will be hell to pay.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/22/the-houses-irs-hearing-live-updates/

​

 

[Masbee]

The Insiders: A special prosecutor in the IRS matter is inevitable

By Ed Rogers, Published: May 22, 2013 at 10:56 amE-mail the writer

This administration’s management of the Obama Internal Revenue Service scandal so far consists of a slow-walking, rolling disclosure of facts; equal parts equivocation, amnesia and indignation from IRS witnesses; deer-in-the-headlights non-responses by the White House press secretary; parsed, lawyerly statements from the president himself; and now one of the central key players is taking the Fifth. And all this comes from what the president claimed would be the “most transparent administration ever…”​

If we give the president the benefit of the doubt and assume he knows the truth is going to come out, the question remains: Does the administration appoint the special prosecutor sooner or later? The calculus inside the White House is how to best protect the president’s political interests. They have two options. They could delay the appointment and let more of the story develop, weather the ugly piecemeal disclosures, give the players time to get their stories straight and lawyer-up and hope Republicans continue their overreach, giving the whole affair a nutty partisan patina. Or, they could accelerate the appointment of a special prosecutor, thereby slowing the congressional inquiries and giving Jay Carney some relief from his daily embarrassing routine by supplying him with the escape hatch of not being allowed to comment on matters associated with the special prosecutor’s ongoing investigation. Not to mention, the White House all the while could blast the appointed counsel as a partisan ideologue à la the hatchet job that was done on Ken Starr.​

Anyway, if the president is innocent, he will end up needing and wanting a special prosecutor sooner rather than later. If he and his White House already have too much to hide, then they must clam up, cry partisanship and hope their allies on the Hill and in the media have the stamina for the long, hard slog ahead.​

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...l-prosecutor-in-the-irs-matter-is-inevitable/

 

[SlyPokerDog]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...l-prosecutor-in-the-irs-matter-is-inevitable/

You linked a Washington Post (read, Liberal, Democrat, Obama loving mainstream media) article. :MARIS61:

 

[Masbee]

Inspector general: Disclosure of tax info to Pro Publica ‘could have been’ illegal

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/21/i...ublica-could-have-been-illegal/#ixzz2U3qH1QV2​

 

[blazerboy30]

THIS IS A NON-ISSUE. NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED. :MARIS61: :MARIS61:

 

[Denny Crane]

Inspector general: Disclosure of tax info to Pro Publica ‘could have been’ illegal

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/21/i...ublica-could-have-been-illegal/#ixzz2U3qH1QV2​

Could have been surely means absolutely was.

From your article:

He noted, however, that such behavior does not have “criminal penalties associated with it,” and that punishment would be “removal from the position.”

 

[Masbee]

Could have been surely means absolutely was.

From your article:

He noted, however, that such behavior does not have “criminal penalties associated with it,” and that punishment would be “removal from the position.”

That was a comment about a different issue, ie the rules of IRS employment.

Why do you persist is this kind of horseshit? Your rep is taking a major beating in this thread.

Do you even care what folks think anymore? Seems not.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

That was a comment about a different issue, ie the rules of IRS employment.

Why do you persist is this kind of horseshit? Your rep is taking a major beating in this thread.

Do you even care what folks think anymore? Seems not.

Just this thread?

fuck...

anymore its like he steps in dogshit and trys to tell us how bad the grass smells...

 

[Denny Crane]

That was a comment about a different issue, ie the rules of IRS employment.

Why do you persist is this kind of horseshit? Your rep is taking a major beating in this thread.

Do you even care what folks think anymore? Seems not.

Later in the hearing, George added that under the Restructuring and Reform Act, there are considered to be “10 deadly sins” — one of which is the “revealing of tax information willfully to harm a taxpayer.”

He noted, however, that such behavior does not have “criminal penalties associated with it,” and that punishment would be “removal from the position.”






D'oh! there goes your theory shot down in flames.

 

[blazerboy30]

Later in the hearing, George added that under the Restructuring and Reform Act, there are considered to be “10 deadly sins” — one of which is the “revealing of tax information willfully to harm a taxpayer.”

He noted, however, that such behavior does not have “criminal penalties associated with it,” and that punishment would be “removal from the position.”






D'oh! there goes your theory shot down in flames.

THIS IS A NON-ISSUE. NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED. :MARIS61: :MARIS61:

 

[Denny Crane]

THIS IS A NON-ISSUE. NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED. :MARIS61: :MARIS61:

What crime? Who's going to be charged with something?

Read that real carefully. To harm. Implies intent to harm.

 

[PapaG]

Rep. Gowdy, a former prosecutor, nailed Lerner on procedural rules because she gave an opening statement. She'll have to go in front of the committee again.

Special prosecutor is right around the corner...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...fth_amendment_rights_by_giving_statement.html

REP. TREY GOWDY (R-SC): Mr. Issa, Mr. Cummings just said we should run this like a courtroom, and I agree with him. She just testified. She just waived her Fifth Amendment right to privilege. You don't get to tell your side of the story and then not be subjected to cross examination. That's not the way it works. She waived her Fifth Amendment privilege by issuing an open statement. She ought to stand here and answer our questions.

 

[PapaG]

IRS Chief visited WH 118 times in 104 months.

Why is the head of the IRS at the WH that much? Is this common protocol?

 

[Denny Crane]

Rep. Gowdy, a former prosecutor, nailed Lerner on procedural rules because she gave an opening statement. She'll have to go in front of the committee again.

Special prosecutor is right around the corner...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...fth_amendment_rights_by_giving_statement.html

Actually, she does get to selectively plead the 5th.

In a court, she would have to take the witness stand to waive the 5th. Here she was compelled to appear, and there was no witness stand. She did announce well ahead of time she'd be pleading the fifth. Issa made her appear anyway.

It's ok though. Some people don't care about HER rights, eh?

 

[PapaG]

Actually, she does get to selectively plead the 5th.

In a court, she would have to take the witness stand to waive the 5th. Here she was compelled to appear, and there was no witness stand. She did announce well ahead of time she'd be pleading the fifth. Issa made her appear anyway.

It's ok though. Some people don't care about HER rights, eh?

She then gave a statement of innocence, after which she pled the 5th to not self-incriminate herself.

"Hey, I'm innocent. What, you want to ask questions? No way!"

She's guilty as hell, as is this entire corrupt administration. Look up what she did as the head of the FEC and the Christian Coalition, a case she lost.

Frankly, though, I'm bored with you and your nonsense, so this will be our last exchange. Please allow me to ignore you, because you've already been proven to be a liar in this thread.

 

[oldguy]

No big deal. The IRS did their own investigation and then hid the results from Congress...before the 2012 election.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...atives-official-refuses-answer-questions.html

From your link:

Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican, linked the tea party scandal with the implementation of President Obama's Affordable Care Act.

'This administration, this agency, the very agency charged with enforcing Obamacare,' Jordan said in an opening statement, 'systematically targeted groups that came into existence because they opposed Obamacare - and they started the targeting the very month, March 2010, that Obamacare came into law - expects us to believe it is the work of ‘two rogue agents.'

The Obama administration, Jordan reminded those in the hearing room, also 'told us and told the American people that the attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi was the work - was caused by a video.

'The people don’t buy it,' he said. 'The American people get it. They just want this administration to give them the truth. And that’s why this hearing is so important.'

Pretty well sums up how I'm feeling about all this shit.

Go Blazers

 

[PapaG]

From you link:



Pretty well sums up how I'm feeling about all this shit.

Go Blazers

The most bizarre thing to me is that a self-proclaimed "Libertarian" is the most staunch defender of what are obvious lies and corruption, and lies on his own ($1b by Tea Party groups) in his defense.

Scary mindset...

 

[Denny Crane]

Actually, she gave a statement of innocence, and then gave the 5th. Her lawyer is a dipshit.

She could have answered every other question and pled the 5th every other one.

I don't know that much about her. She's a career public servant who's specialty for her last two positions was to crack down on tax code violators. And she's a lawyer. A prosecutor in her own right.

She likely knows better than anyone on the planet if she broke some law.

She told the world she is pleading the fifth because she's innocent. There's no requirement she can't say what she wants about her reasons.

 

[Denny Crane]

Bill Keller of the NY Times suggests Obama call republicans' bluff by appointing a special counsel. He suggests Patrick Fitzgerald or Ken Starr. I'd be fine with it. How about Ted Olson? Rudy? Take your pick. It won't matter.

 

[PapaG]

So much for the "rogue" agents in Cincinnati excuse, although Lerner taking the 5th makes that laughable, anyhow.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/348983/oversight-washington-all-along-eliana-johnson

From the outset, Internal Revenue Service lawyers based in Washington, D.C., provided important guidance on the handling of tea-party groups’ applications for tax-exempt status, according to both IRS sources and the inspector general’s report released in mid May.

Officials in the Technical Unit of the IRS’s Rulings and Agreements office played an integral role in determining how the targeted applications were treated, provided general guidelines to Cincinnati case workers, briefed other agency employees on the status of the special cases, and reviewed all those intrusive requests demanding “more information” from tea-party groups. At times, the Technical Unit lawyers seemed to exercise tight control over these applications, creating both a backlog in application processing and frustration among Cincinnati agents waiting for direction.

An IRS employee who asked not to be identified tells National Review Online that all members of the agency’s Technical Unit are based in Washington, D.C. A current list of Technical Unit managers provided by another IRS employee shows that all such managers are based at the agency’s headquarters on Constitution Avenue in the District of Columbia, and the IRS confirmed, in a testy exchange with National Review Online, that the Technical Unit is “based in Washington.”

According to the IRS source, who is based in Cincinnati, complex cases are routinely elevated to the Technical Unit for guidance. Many of the questions that agents sent to groups most likely came “from Tax Law Specialists — lawyers — in D.C.,” the Cincinnati employee explains. “With tea-party cases, questions from the Tax Law Specialists were way too aggressive,” he says. The Washington Post described these lawyers as parsing “the murkier, more complex applications” — including those of tea-party groups.

This account comports with the one laid out in the inspector general’s report, although this aspect of the report has been neglected in much of the press coverage. On May 17, 2010, according to the IG report, Determinations Unit specialists in Cincinnati handling tea-party applications were instructed to “send additional information request letters to the Technical Unit for review prior to issuance.” Ten days later, the Technical Unit “began reviewing additional information request letters prepared by the Determinations Unit.”

The IG report indicates this became a source of frustration, and specialists in Cincinnati pressed for a streamlined approach. “Why does the Technical Unit need to review every additional information request letter when a template letter could be approved and used on all the cases?” they asked via e-mail. The Washington unit rejected this approach and, in February 2011, was developing individualized letters itself. According to the IG report, an update from the Technical Unit acting manager to the Determinations Unit manager indicated, “Letters were being developed and would be reviewed shortly.”

...continued at link

 

[MickZagger]

This thread is like a Republican circle jerk.

 

[PapaG]

Hmm...

Probably the next to be called, considering there is protocol, and the "rogue agent" excuse was an obvious lie.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/carolplattliebau/2013/05/22/who-is-cindy-thomas-n1603794

Who Is Cindy Thomas?

The short answer? The highest-ranking official in the Cincinnati office where, the IRS would have us believe, a few rogue employees initiated a scheme to target conservatives. SNIP

When an application for tax exempt status comes into the IRS, agents have 270 days to work through that application. If the application is not processed within those 270 days it automatically triggers flags in the system. When that happens, individual agents are required to input a status update on that individual case once a month, every month until the case is resolved.

Keep in mind, at least 300 groups were targeted out of Cincinnati alone. Those applications spent anywhere from 18 months to nearly 3 years in the system and some still don't have their non-profit status. 300 groups multiplied by at least 18 months for each group, means thousands of red flags would have been generated in the system.

So who in the chain of command would have received all these flags? The answer, according to the IRS directory, one woman in Cincinnati, Cindy Thomas, the Program Manager of the Tax Exempt Division. Because all six of our IRS workers have different individual and territory managers, Cindy Thomas is one manager they all have common.

SNIP Oh and, Swann adds, Cindy Thomas is the person who just happened to be the person who signed off on the (improper) release of confidential IRS documents to Pro Publica.

Cindy Thomas has not been called before Congress . . . yet. But if she is, let's hope her appearance is handled better than Lois Lerner's was today.

 

[PapaG]

IRS emails: Look for statements 'critical' of government

http://news.cincinnati.com/interact...statements-critical-government?nclick_check=1

 

[PapaG]

Uh oh...

Inspector General: IRS Misuse Similar To Nixon Targeting

Treasury Inspector General J. Russell George stunningly compared the current actions of their IRS to Nixon's targeting of political enemies while testifying before the House Appropriations Subcommittee in charge of overseeing financial services about the IRS' targeting of conservative groups 3 Jun 2013, 2:47 PM PDT

[video]http://content.bitsontherun.com/previews/lhxXeQE0-dh3Zgtip[/video]

 

[MarAzul]

This has nothing to do with increased page views.

I've stated the case numerous times and ways. Other posters have understood my position.

The IRS is apologizing for the issue, as they went about doing the right thing the wrong way.

I pointed out that people are likely to be fired over it.

So what the fuck more do you want?

It was completely unprecedented for the President to blast the Supreme Court Justices in the state of the Union address for their decision. I don't know if he did more to prod the IRS minions into action
But he surely did motivate the predominately left public employees in to action with the shots he took at the Justices that night. I don't know what the heck the man
expected to happen in result, But then he did not do a damn thing to prevent them from running amuck did he?

What I want is to have everyone know Obama did do the deed whether he knows it or not. He is guilty of the causing the problem or guilty of not preventing it.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/was...he-supreme-court-campaign-finance-ruling.html

 

[Denny Crane]

It was completely unprecedented for the President to blast the Supreme Court Justices in the state of the Union address for their decision. I don't know if he did more to prod the IRS minions into action
But he surely did motivate the predominately left public employees in to action with the shots he took at the Justices that night. I don't know what the heck the man
expected to happen in result, But then he did not do a damn thing to prevent them from running amuck did he?

What I want is to have everyone know Obama did do the deed whether he knows it or not. He is guilty of the causing the problem or guilty of not preventing it.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/was...he-supreme-court-campaign-finance-ruling.html

I agree he sets the tone. I agree you can pin the FAIL on the donkey and win.

Having lived through Watergate, this isn't even close. And the heated rhetoric is a loser.

 

[Masbee]

I agree he sets the tone. I agree you can pin the FAIL on the donkey and win.

Having lived through Watergate, this isn't even close. And the heated rhetoric is a loser.

That is likely to be true.

But, the investigations have just started.

So, how the hell do you know?

Answer: you don't. You have made up your mind in advance.

Pretty lame.