IRS admits to targeting Conservative groups

#526
#526
Vol Main said:
From reports in the recent articles, the change came in 1996 I think. I am okay with the rule about "primary" work of the organization, because contributors should not be totally busted for a few infractions. But that requirement should not be flagrantly abused as a wide open loop hole. The reality is that the primary work of the Tea Party and a lot of other nonprofits with tax exempt status is to affect legislation and elections.
Click to expand...

It does not matter! Say again, IT DOES NOT MATTER! The IRS has misapplied the status for so long and awarded it to unqualified groups on both sides. The IRS set a precedent then started targeting specific groups who opposed the current administration.

The wording of the law went out the window once the IRS started awarding 501(c)(4) status to political groups.
 
#528
#528
Sounds like Obama's staff doesn't tell him sh!t?

And, I don't buy for one second know one told him, if I was POTUS and my staff did not tell me of a potential scandal of this magnitude, I would have a new staff.
 
#532
#532
hog88 said:
Sounds like Obama's staff doesn't tell him sh!t?

And, I don't buy for one second know one told him, if I was POTUS and my staff did not tell me of a potential scandal of this magnitude, I would have a new staff.
Click to expand...

I've said before...he's either got s***ty staff or he's lying.

I personally think he's not being honest. I am not certain you can be that incompetent as an executive.

Obama "in the dark" allows him to fall back to the trusty SODDI defense. It seems to have worked well for this administration in the past.
 
#533
#533
DC_Vol said:
I've said before...he's either got s***ty staff or he's lying.

I personally think he's not being honest. I am not certain you can be that incompetent as an executive.

Obama "in the dark" allows him to fall back to the trusty SODDI defense. It seems to have worked well for this administration in the past.
Click to expand...

I say it's both.....this excuse is a lose lose....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#534
#534
I'm sure everyone will be shocked by this...

News from The Associated Press

Douglas Shulman, who vacated his position last November when his five-year term expired, told the Senate Finance Committee he didn't learn all the facts until he read last week's report by a Treasury inspector general confirming the targeting strategy.

In his first public remarks since the story broke, Shulman said: "I agree this is an issue that when someone spotted it, they should have brought it up the chain. And they didn't. I don't know why."
Click to expand...
 
#535
#535
Top IRS official will invoke Fifth Amendment - latimes.com

A top IRS official in the division that reviews nonprofit groups will invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer questions before a House committee investigating the agency’s improper screening of conservative nonprofit groups.


Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, won’t answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening – or why she didn’t reveal it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor 3rd.

Lerner was scheduled to appear before the House Oversight committee Wednesday.
Click to expand...

booyah!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#538
#538
Chad Pergram ‏@ChadPergram

Atty for #IRS's Lerner writes Issa that requiring her to appear at hrng even though she's taking the 5th is “to embarrass or burden her.”

Background on Chad Pergram;

Chad Pergram covers Congress for FOX News. He's won an Edward R. Murrow Award and the Joan Barone Award for his reporting on Capitol Hill.

I suppose he is lying LG? After all, he works for Fox News.
 
#539
#539
So something she might say could tend to incriminate her. . . looking good, Dear!
 
#540
#540
This is why a special prosecutor needs to be appointed. A SP could grant immunity from prosecution and compel people to testify. We havn't seen the last of this.
 
#541
#541
hog88 said:
This is why a special prosecutor needs to be appointed. A SP could grant immunity from prosecution and compel people to testify. We havn't seen the last of this.
Click to expand...

I suppose if that's what it takes but getting immunity from prosecution? I don't like that idea because then how does that stop others from doing it knowing they can possibly walk free and clear?
 
#542
#542
VOLinthaNATI said:
I suppose if that's what it takes but getting immunity from prosecution? I don't like that idea because then how does that stop others from doing it knowing they can possibly walk free and clear?
Click to expand...

You use it to catch the bigger fish.
 
#543
#543
hog88 said:
This is why a special prosecutor needs to be appointed. A SP could grant immunity from prosecution and compel people to testify. We havn't seen the last of this.
Click to expand...


This is starting to have the feel of the Reagan Iran-Contra investigations.
North saved Reagan , who will save Obama.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top