IRS admits to targeting Conservative groups

#802
#802
lawgator1 said:
The real problem, as we discussed about 10 pages ago itt, is that the exemption has been misused and abused over the past 50 years. Just dump the exemption altogether, imo. Problem solve.
Click to expand...

Yea, that's exactly what you and other Liberals want because they refuse to take responsibility for anything. The law made them single out conservative groups right?
 
#803
#803
VOLinthaNATI said:
He didn't have to testify and there was no reason for him to. His story remained consistent from Day 1.

Nobody even knows Lerner's story because she hasn't said anything other than to answer a planted question that started this whole mess.

It's a joke that you're trying to compare the 2 but par for the course...
Click to expand...


They are both constitutional rights, numbskull.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#805
#805
VOLinthaNATI said:
Yea, that's exactly what you and other Liberals want because they refuse to take responsibility for anything. The law made them single out conservative groups right?
Click to expand...


They singled out both. It seems more to be targeted on conservatives because after the CU decision there was an explosion of such groups designed to hide political donations.

The situation will flip if there is ever another Republican in the WH. Democrats will claim that in their effort to take back control that they've been singled out for closer tax scrutiny, or some other punitive measure.

When the criteria in the law is "social change" or words to that effect, you just open the door both to actual abuse, and also to claims of abuse even where there isn't any.

Why should political or social organizations have tax exempt status in the first place? They shouldn't.

End the exemption. Problem solved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#809
#809
lawgator1 said:
Regardless of who is in power the other side can always claim that they've been singled out. We've seen that time and again. And when you have an exemption that basically equates political activism with promoting social change, there's just no clear dividing line at all. That gives the party complaining "proof" that they've been abused, and prevents the party in power from ever truly being able to defend itself.

It'll just go on and on and on.

Dump the exemption.
Click to expand...

Dumping the exemption is a reasonable plan.

It doesn't explain abuse of the law which there is both clear evidence about AND the IRS itself admits there was differential treatment.
 
#810
#810
lawgator1 said:
They singled out both. It seems more to be targeted on conservatives because after the CU decision there was an explosion of such groups designed to hide political donations.
Click to expand...

Evidence clearly shows differential treatment though you continue to deny that. The evidence of differential treatment is mounting. The "explosion of apps" is false.

lawgator1 said:
The situation will flip if there is ever another Republican in the WH. Democrats will claim that in their effort to take back control that they've been singled out for closer tax scrutiny, or some other punitive measure.

When the criteria in the law is "social change" or words to that effect, you just open the door both to actual abuse, and also to claims of abuse even where there isn't any.

Why should political or social organizations have tax exempt status in the first place? They shouldn't.

End the exemption. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

The future problem is partially solved but that does not excuse the abuses that have been demonstrated in this case.
 
Last edited:
#811
#811
lawgator1 said:
They singled out both. It seems more to be targeted on conservatives because after the CU decision there was an explosion of such groups designed to hide political donations.
Click to expand...

Again, absurd recycled response.

I don't give a damn about the political exemption and if it should be repealed.

As much as you want it to excuse the absurd abuse of IRS power it doesn't change a damn thing. The explosion was because people who just want to be left alone saw a massive intrusion by the federal government into their lives due to the horse**** laws and regulations this administration passed in the first 2 years in office. Acting like it just happened randomly in terms of the explosion of applications is again looking at this ideologically and obtuse.
 
#812
#812
Obsessed said:
I see LG is at his normal pace this morning.

Towing the obama line
Click to expand...

No doubt - one thread where a GOP candidate is the worst human ever and this one where admitted and proven wrong doing is no big deal (since it was on the watch of his guy).

Nothing new here.
 
#813
#813
volinbham said:
No doubt - one thread where a GOP candidate is the worst human ever and this one where admitted and proven wrong doing is no big deal (since it was on the watch of his guy).

Nothing new here.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I think freak slips him some cash just to come in here to troll us just to keep us riled up
 
#815
#815
lawgator1 said:
Someone asserting their constitutional rights is evidence? Nice view you got there of the Constitution.

I imagine you are in the camp that thought GZ was automatically deemed guilty because he did not testify?
Click to expand...

I don't know what kind of law you practice, so I may be asking for speculation from you, but here goes:

You're representing a company that's being sued by a former employee for wrongful termination. While deposing the plaintiff, you ask "Did you ever steal money from my client?" The plaintiff pleads the fifth. Given that this is a civil matter, do you not use his invoking his right against self-incrimination as a tacit admission of criminal conduct?
 
#817
#817
volinbham said:
No doubt - one thread where a GOP candidate is the worst human ever and this one where admitted and proven wrong doing is no big deal (since it was on the watch of his guy).

Nothing new here.
Click to expand...


Well, first of all, I have said that the screening system was wrong. I have not defended it. What I have said on the issue is that the apolitical explanation given for it makes sense, and there is evidence to support that it is the real reason it occurred, whereas the speculation that it was masterminded by the WH has no basis in fact, at all.

As to characterizing my calling LC "the worst human ever"? Well, that's pretty accurate. And I'm right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#818
#818
bamawriter said:
I don't know what kind of law you practice, so I may be asking for speculation from you, but here goes:

You're representing a company that's being sued by a former employee for wrongful termination. While deposing the plaintiff, you ask "Did you ever steal money from my client?" The plaintiff pleads the fifth. Given that this is a civil matter, do you not use his invoking his right against self-incrimination as a tacit admission of criminal conduct?
Click to expand...


If the defense is that he was fired for stealing money, the case is going to end when I can demonstrate that is the reason he was fired, and not for some illegal reason. But that's a function of the law because of the way that the burdens shift in employment cases, and at that point we have offered a non-illegal reason and he cannot overcome it.

But that is different than what we have here. Here, when Lerner took the Fifth, we had all sorts of people in the GOP, and their Fox minions, going "A ha!" This is evidence of wrongdoing.

No, its not.



Having said that, I have agreed since the beginning that the screening criteria was wrong and should not have been used.


I asked for, and am still waiting on, any evidence that it was politically motivated. Without that, all you have is a story of negligence and boobery. Those are not good things, but they do not a scandal make.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#819
#819
VOLinthaNATI said:
Obama got his ASS kicked in 2010 right? Why was this?

Next, when did the IRS admittedly start screening tea party tax exempt applications?

Thirdly, would this extra screening not directly affect the Tea Party and their outreach to the community to get their message out thus "supressing" said message?
Click to expand...

lawgator1 said:
I asked for, and am still waiting on, any evidence that it was politically motivated. Without that, all you have is a story of negligence and boobery. Those are not good things, but they do not a scandal make.
Click to expand...

How about you quit dodging my questions then?

:popcorn:
 
#820
#820
I'm asking for evidence. You are making a weak argument off of asking rhetorical questions that are not even evidence, much less of the rank speculation you engage.

Again, I am asking for evidence.

Have you any?

No, you don't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#821
#821
lawgator1 said:
I'm asking for evidence. You are making a weak argument off of asking rhetorical questions that are not even evidence, much less of the rank speculation you engage.

Again, I am asking for evidence.

Have you any?

No, you don't.
Click to expand...

You dodged but I'll play along.

How about you answer the first two. I'll pose them again;

Obama got his ass kicked in 2010 right?

Why was this exactly?
 
#822
#822
VOLinthaNATI said:
You dodged but I'll play along.

How about you answer the first two. I'll pose them again;

Obama got his ass kicked in 2010 right?

Why was this exactly?
Click to expand...


You are actually engaging in the worst argument you could possibly make. But go ahead. I'll ask. What evidence do you have that Obama or his campaign ordered the IRS to target conservative groups?

Just point me to the evidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#823
#823
lawgator1 said:
I asked for, and am still waiting on, any evidence that it was politically motivated. Without that, all you have is a story of negligence and boobery. Those are not good things, but they do not a scandal make.
Click to expand...

At a minimum it was based on political affiliation - that has been repeatedly established and admitted to.

We now know that the directive for additional scrutiny and the creation of the ridiculous questionnaires came from both Lois Lerner's office AND the IRS Chief Counsel who is both an Obama appointee AND long time Democrat operative. The testimony today (from a 48 year veteran of the IRS) indicated he has NEVER seen this type of activity.

We also know that the IRS HQ was completely lying when they claimed this was just rogue agents in Cincy.

We also know that the IRS visited the WH a massive number of times.

We also know that Obama's team was aware of the problems yet did nothing to investigate or stop the activity.

No smoking gun yet but there is plenty of evidence for probable cause of direct political motivation to go after conservative groups.

Evidence is mounting and as it does we see higher ups testifying.
 
#824
#824
#825
#825
Background on Chief Council;

Students & Recent Grads: Office of Chief Counsel Jobs and Careers with the IRS

Obama nominee William Wilkins leads this office.

Meet William J. Wilkins -- the President's Man at the IRS - Carol Platt Liebau

On the time line (page 36), there is the following entry for August 4, 2011:

"Rulings and Agreements office personnel held a meeting with Chief Counsel so that everyone would have the latest information on the issue [of developing new criteria for identifying which applications to send to specialists for more scrutiny].
Click to expand...

In other words, the Chief Counsel of the IRS was informed about the issue on August 4, 2011. So who is this Chief Counsel?

America, meet Obama appointee William J. Wilkins -- briefed on the political targeting of conservative groups as of 8/4/11."

Finally;

How is it that the systematic harassment of conservative groups continued at the IRS even after President Obama's man at the IRS knew of the previous targeting as of August 4, 2011? For example, the timeline entry for January 25, 2012 reads as follows:

The BOLO ["be on the lookout"] criteria were again updated. The criteria was revised as "political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform/movement."
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top