IRS admits to targeting Conservative groups

[lawgator1]

This is just not that complicated. There was an explosion of political groups trying to get an exemption for social groups. The IRS came up with identifying words to try to screen those applications. Because the conservatives were so much more motivated in that time frame, their organizations were naturally picked so frequently. Because there were more of them. Liberal groups also got screened more but not as many because there weren't as many applying relative to the conservative ones.

They still got approved.

All of this is well documented.

 

[hog88]

This is just not that complicated. There was an explosion of political groups trying to get an exemption for social groups. The IRS came up with identifying words to try to screen those applications. Because the conservatives were so much more motivated in that time frame, their organizations were naturally picked so frequently. Because there were more of them. Liberal groups also got screened more but not as many because there weren't as many applying relative to the conservative ones.

They still got approved.

All of this is well documented.

Suuuuure. Keep telling yourself that.

 

[Grand Vol]

This is just not that complicated. There was an explosion of political groups trying to get an exemption for social groups. The IRS came up with identifying words to try to screen those applications. Because the conservatives were so much more motivated in that time frame, their organizations were naturally picked so frequently. Because there were more of them. Liberal groups also got screened more but not as many because there weren't as many applying relative to the conservative ones.

They still got approved.

All of this is well documented.

Isn't it also well documented that a member of that House Committee contacted the IRS during that same time frame to have them check specific groups?

I think that's well documented as well...

 

[theFallGuy]

This is just not that complicated. There was an explosion of political groups trying to get an exemption for social groups. The IRS came up with identifying words to try to screen those applications. Because the conservatives were so much more motivated in that time frame, their organizations were naturally picked so frequently. Because there were more of them. Liberal groups also got screened more but not as many because there weren't as many applying relative to the conservative ones.

They still got approved.

All of this is well documented.

lololol. Your denial never ceases to amaze me.

 

[Sandvol]

This is just not that complicated. There was an explosion of political groups trying to get an exemption for social groups. The IRS came up with identifying words to try to screen those applications. Because the conservatives were so much more motivated in that time frame, their organizations were naturally picked so frequently. Because there were more of them. Liberal groups also got screened more but not as many because there weren't as many applying relative to the conservative ones.

They still got approved.

All of this is well documented.

If nothing wrong was done why did Lerner not testify before Congress, plead the 5th, put on administrative leave and then resign? Why was she found in "neglect of duties" by an internal investigation?

(Oh, and by the way, this was before any of the email content was discovered.)

 

[Sandvol]

I predict Lerner will be prosecuted and there will be others in the IRS and in the Justice Department. And, possibly in the White House.

 

[Orange_Crush]

This is just not that complicated. There was an explosion of political groups trying to get an exemption for social groups. The IRS came up with identifying words to try to screen those applications. Because the conservatives were so much more motivated in that time frame, their organizations were naturally picked so frequently. Because there were more of them. Liberal groups also got screened more but not as many because there weren't as many applying relative to the conservative ones.

They still got approved.

All of this is well documented.

From the last quote in my post, which you obviously didn't bother reading before laughing it down:

Lerner later acknowledged pursuing prosecutions of these groups would not fit well with the law.

Well, guess what? Now we know she was pursuing prosecution of these folks.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I predict Lerner will be prosecuted and there will be others in the IRS and in the Justice Department. And, possibly in the White House.

Hopefully not until after January of 2016... then she won't get pardoned by the boy king.

 

[volinbham]

Interesting developments.

1) IG looking into criminal behavior
2) Turns out IRS never asked IT people if the tapes existed or emails could be retrieved.

But under questioning from Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. Camus said it took him only two weeks to track down the backup tapes, and when he asked the IRS depository for them, the workers there said they’d never been contacted by the agency itself.

Read more: IRS watchdog reveals Lois Lerner missing emails now subject of criminal investigation - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Nope - not even a smidgen of corruption going on in the IRS.

IRS watchdog reveals Lois Lerner missing emails now subject of criminal investigation - Washington Times
IRS watchdog investigating email scandal: 'potential criminal activity' - CNN.com

 

[Biopsyman]

Who cares at this point... This was an issue before the election and once again the media did not nothing

 

[volinbham]

Will be interesting to see if the new AG takes this more seriously than Holder has. He/She couldn't possibly take it less seriously.

 

[Biopsyman]

Will be interesting to see if the new AG takes this more seriously than Holder has. He/She couldn't possibly take it less seriously.

Obama is her boss.. Nothing will happen

 

[lawgator1]

I know you can hardly contain your glee, but...


"There is potential criminal activity," Treasury Deputy Inspector General Timothy Camus told the House Oversight Committee Thursday.


Camus did not elaborate on who may have committed possible criminal acts. And, he cautioned that the investigation is not complete and cautioned against drawing conclusions until all the facts are in.

 

[volinbham]

This is just not that complicated. There was an explosion of political groups trying to get an exemption for social groups. The IRS came up with identifying words to try to screen those applications. Because the conservatives were so much more motivated in that time frame, their organizations were naturally picked so frequently. Because there were more of them. Liberal groups also got screened more but not as many because there weren't as many applying relative to the conservative ones.

They still got approved.

All of this is well documented.

You are leaving out some facts.

The screening words were all focused on one side of the political spectrum.

There was not proportionality in the number of applicants by party and number scrutinized.

The small # of left leaning groups subject to review received much less in depth review.

They didn't all get approved. Further, many were left in limbo between approval and denial.

The treatment was differential. The IRS admitted it. The question is WHY was it differential; not IF it was differential.

 

[volinbham]

I know you can hardly contain your glee, but...


"There is potential criminal activity," Treasury Deputy Inspector General Timothy Camus told the House Oversight Committee Thursday.


Camus did not elaborate on who may have committed possible criminal acts. And, he cautioned that the investigation is not complete and cautioned against drawing conclusions until all the facts are in.

Of course. It is new though that they suggested it is criminal activity.

It is also new and indicative of the utter stonewalling that IRS officials didn't even ask if the tapes were available.

 

[bamawriter]

I know you can hardly contain your glee, but...


"There is potential criminal activity," Treasury Deputy Inspector General Timothy Camus told the House Oversight Committee Thursday.


Camus did not elaborate on who may have committed possible criminal acts. And, he cautioned that the investigation is not complete and cautioned against drawing conclusions until all the facts are in.

A couple of different officials might have committed perjury. I'm not sure what it is in your quoted text that would suggest otherwise.

 

[hog88]

Will be interesting to see if the new AG takes this more seriously than Holder has. He/She couldn't possibly take it less seriously.

I wouldn't count on it.

 

[hog88]

A couple of different officials might have committed perjury. I'm not sure what it is in your quoted text that would suggest otherwise.

By the time the investigation is done and charges can be filed it will also be the time for some "I'm out of here" pardons.

 

[lawgator1]

Of course. It is new though that they suggested it is criminal activity.

It is also new and indicative of the utter stonewalling that IRS officials didn't even ask if the tapes were available.

Its not clear to me whether he is referencing the search for the emails and the representation that they were gone due to her computer, i.e. they did not do the searches they claimed they did from other sources, or whether its about the underlying allegation of wrongdoing and targeting.

 

[volinbham]

Its not clear to me whether he is referencing the search for the emails and the representation that they were gone due to her computer, i.e. they did not do the searches they claimed they did from other sources, or whether its about the underlying allegation of wrongdoing and targeting.

Who suggested it was either?

The news is that it has been publicly announced that it is a criminal investigation in addition to the larger investigation.

The other WTF item is that IRS never tried too hard to find the emails that had been subpoenaed.

The targeting occurred. IRS has admitted it. There is plenty of evidence that DOJ knew about it. The falsehoods about a couple rogue agents in Cincy have been debunked. The big question is did the impetus for this come from outside the IRS. We don't have a direct link at this time. We do know it went high up in the IRS and that the IRS coordinated with DoJ on the matter. We also know that IRS has stonewalled the investigation and now there is sufficient evidence for the IG to label "criminal" on some of the activities being investigated.

Flies in the face of "not a smidgen of corruption at the IRS" assertion.

 

[lawgator1]

Who suggested it was either?

The news is that it has been publicly announced that it is a criminal investigation in addition to the larger investigation.

The other WTF item is that IRS never tried too hard to find the emails that had been subpoenaed.

The targeting occurred. IRS has admitted it. There is plenty of evidence that DOJ knew about it. The falsehoods about a couple rogue agents in Cincy have been debunked. The big question is did the impetus for this come from outside the IRS. We don't have a direct link at this time. We do know it went high up in the IRS and that the IRS coordinated with DoJ on the matter. We also know that IRS has stonewalled the investigation and now there is sufficient evidence for the IG to label "criminal" on some of the activities being investigated.

Flies in the face of "not a smidgen of corruption at the IRS" assertion.

Ummm, of course it matters.

If there was criminal activity in targeting that's a big deal, I'd agree.

But you keep blurring over that important distinction, I suspect on purpose, by saying the IRS admitted they "targeted" when in reality what they admitted is that they had a protocol in place, to look for key words to screen applications because of the explosion of applications after Citizens United from people abusing the exemption, both left and right. There were more right than left, far more, because that is who was motivated after Obama's election. Naturally, the majority of those screened would therefore be right leaning organizations as they made up the majority of the pool of applications.

If the question is whether there was a purposeful failure to provide emails upon subpoena, versus laziness or incompetence in trying to find them, then that is not as big a deal until they find the former rather than the latter.

Again, I cannot tell from the article if the investigation is into criminal activity in targeting, or criminal activity in not turning over emails or knowingly misrepresenting what was done to find them.

I think to most people there's an obvious and pretty important distinction between them. I get why you would rather gloss over that, however, and just generally throw it all into a hodge podge of IRS scandal. Its much more interesting to claim political targeting than it is to drone on and on about thousands of pages of responses to subpoenas.

 

[volinbham]

Ummm, of course it matters.

If there was criminal activity in targeting that's a big deal, I'd agree.

But you keep blurring over that important distinction, I suspect on purpose, by saying the IRS admitted they "targeted" when in reality what they admitted is that they had a protocol in place, to look for key words to screen applications because of the explosion of applications after Citizens United from people abusing the exemption, both left and right. There were more right than left, far more, because that is who was motivated after Obama's election. Naturally, the majority of those screened would therefore be right leaning organizations as they made up the majority of the pool of applications.

If the question is whether there was a purposeful failure to provide emails upon subpoena, versus laziness or incompetence in trying to find them, then that is not as big a deal until they find the former rather than the latter.

Again, I cannot tell from the article if the investigation is into criminal activity in targeting, or criminal activity in not turning over emails or knowingly misrepresenting what was done to find them.

I think to most people there's an obvious and pretty important distinction between them. I get why you would rather gloss over that, however, and just generally throw it all into a hodge podge of IRS scandal. Its much more interesting to claim political targeting than it is to drone on and on about thousands of pages of responses to subpoenas.

I'm not glossing over anything - I've specifically said I don't know what the criminality being investigated is. I seriously doubt it's some link to another part of government.

you've been peddling the same BS about proportionality and that has been debunked.

the admission was not just the protocol - it was that the protocol was biased against conservative groups.

The evidence is quite compelling that there was not proportionality and the level of scrutiny and foot-dragging was DIFFERENT between groups.

They've admitted the mistakes. They claim it was just that; a mistake.

First it was blamed on "rogue agents". The key is Lerner and she ain't talking.

 

[bamawriter]

Ummm, of course it matters.

If there was criminal activity in targeting that's a big deal, I'd agree.

But you keep blurring over that important distinction, I suspect on purpose, by saying the IRS admitted they "targeted" when in reality what they admitted is that they had a protocol in place, to look for key words to screen applications because of the explosion of applications after Citizens United from people abusing the exemption, both left and right. There were more right than left, far more, because that is who was motivated after Obama's election. Naturally, the majority of those screened would therefore be right leaning organizations as they made up the majority of the pool of applications.

That is such crap, and you keep trotting it out as if it will become less crappy the more it's repeated.

They looked for key words that were going to come from a specific subset of right-leaning organizations in order to perform enhanced scrutiny on just those applicants. That isn't "screening", that's targeting. "Screening" would be performing EDD on a random sampling. But they didn't do that. They performed EDD on specific groups simply because of their political views.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I know you can hardly contain your glee, but...


"There is potential criminal activity," Treasury Deputy Inspector General Timothy Camus told the House Oversight Committee Thursday.


Camus did not elaborate on who may have committed possible criminal acts. And, he cautioned that the investigation is not complete and cautioned against drawing conclusions until all the facts are in.

Ten bucks says your boy already has the pardon papers printed awaiting date and signature.

 

[McDad]

...in order to perform enhanced scrutiny on just those applicants. That isn't "screening", that's targeting. "Screening" would be performing EDD on a random sampling.

An excellent point. I'm screened at the airport along with everyone else. My friend, Benjamin, is targeted because he looks terroristy.