IRS admits to targeting Conservative groups

#1,976
#1,976
lawgator1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Semantics. You can call it protocol, but I would betcha that those "key words" were only things like "Patriot" and "Tea Party". Pretty sure "Barry's Boot Lickers" wouldn't have gotten a second look.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,977
#1,977
volinbham said:
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.
Click to expand...


I don't understand something.

If the criteria itself was slanted, and intentionally so for political reasons (and that is exactly your claim) ....

































.... then how do you explain that it was a Republican supervisor who authorized it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,978
#1,978
lawgator1 said:
I don't understand something.

If the criteria itself was slanted, and intentionally so for political reasons (and that is exactly your claim) ....

































.... then how do you explain that it was a Republican supervisor who authorized it?
Click to expand...

Are you daft?

The criteria were slanted. IRS admits that. It was disparate treatment along political lines.

What hasn't been established is whether or not such treatment was ordered/suggested due to some agenda from outside the IRS or the IRS took it upon themselves to target one group more than the other.

At this point, the IRS has suggested the latter.

My speculation (not claim) is that somewhere outside the IRS there was influence to do this. At this point that has not been established though the DoJ link bears further investigation.

Outside influence or not, the targeting was disparate (ie. not proportional to number of applicants) along party lines and the IRS has admitted so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,980
#1,980
Mtntrout said:
What were the keywords? Do we know?
Click to expand...


They are in the public domain if you do a search. They originally were words like Tea Party (which would be equivalent of Democrat or Republican). Lerner told them to change them so they were made less specific to the TP but broader including things likes 9/12, over taxed, etc.

The IRS acknowledge they used words that unfairly attacked one side more than the other excusing it as an innocent attempt at efficiency. Never the less they admitted using those terms and targeting those groups was wrong.

The IG investigating concluded that the scrutiny was not proportional (accounting for differences in #'s of application). For example I believe he reported that 30% of orgs with a key word that might link to Progressive were targeted whereas 100% of orgs with the key word linked to Tea Party were targeted.

In short, the IRS has fully admitted their targeting system was wrong and unfairly impacted one side of the political spectrum. The IG concurred. The IRS claims the mistake was not politically motivated - just an "oopsie" attempt to be more efficient. That contention is what is being investigated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,981
#1,981
volinbham said:
They are in the public domain if you do a search. They originally were words like Tea Party (which would be equivalent of Democrat or Republican). Lerner told them to change them so they were made less specific to the TP but broader including things likes 9/12, over taxed, etc.

The IRS acknowledge they used words that unfairly attacked one side more than the other excusing it as an innocent attempt at efficiency. Never the less they admitted using those terms and targeting those groups was wrong.

The IG investigating concluded that the scrutiny was not proportional (accounting for differences in #'s of application). For example I believe he reported that 30% of orgs with a key word that might link to Progressive were targeted whereas 100% of orgs with the key word linked to Tea Party were targeted.

In short, the IRS has fully admitted their targeting system was wrong and unfairly impacted one side of the political spectrum. The IG concurred. The IRS claims the mistake was not politically motivated - just an "oopsie" attempt to be more efficient. That contention is what is being investigated.
Click to expand...

Good summary.
 
#1,982
#1,982
volinbham said:
Are you daft?

The criteria were slanted. IRS admits that. It was disparate treatment along political lines.

What hasn't been established is whether or not such treatment was ordered/suggested due to some agenda from outside the IRS or the IRS took it upon themselves to target one group more than the other.

At this point, the IRS has suggested the latter.

My speculation (not claim) is that somewhere outside the IRS there was influence to do this. At this point that has not been established though the DoJ link bears further investigation.

Outside influence or not, the targeting was disparate (ie. not proportional to number of applicants) along party lines and the IRS has admitted so.
Click to expand...




You didn't answer the question.

If it was intentional targeting of conservatives rather than a good faith mechanism to try to deal with the manipulation of the exemption, why did a Republican supervisor approve the screening process?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,983
#1,983
lawgator1 said:
You didn't answer the question.

If it was intentional targeting of conservatives rather than a good faith mechanism to try to deal with the manipulation of the exemption, why did a Republican supervisor approve the screening process?
Click to expand...

Maybe because his boss told him to??? Maybe he was a pissed off Republican voter??? Maybe he's really a Dem who registers as a Republican just to f things up???

Who knows and who really cares. Is that seriously the point you would make as an attorney when defending this case??? Your Honor... I know it looks bad, and I know the actual data supports that the GOP was unfairly targeted, but that can't be true because the person who approved it is registered as a Republican... therefore this couldn't have been unfair even though the evidence proves it was. I rest my case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,984
#1,984
lawgator1 said:
You didn't answer the question.

If it was intentional targeting of conservatives rather than a good faith mechanism to try to deal with the manipulation of the exemption, why did a Republican supervisor approve the screening process?
Click to expand...

There could be any number of reasons including being directed to do so.

His role (and by no means was he the only person involved) is at best marginally relevant.

So continue with your revisionist history. At this point even if Obama claimed full responsibility you'd not believe him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#1,985
#1,985
volinbham said:
There could be any number of reasons including being directed to do so.

His role (and by no means was he the only person involved) is at best marginally relevant.

So continue with your revisionist history. At this point even if Obama claimed full responsibility you'd not believe him.
Click to expand...

Like that is ever going to happen.

It's Bush's fault!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,986
#1,986
volinbham said:
They are in the public domain if you do a search. They originally were words like Tea Party (which would be equivalent of Democrat or Republican). Lerner told them to change them so they were made less specific to the TP but broader including things likes 9/12, over taxed, etc.

The IRS acknowledge they used words that unfairly attacked one side more than the other excusing it as an innocent attempt at efficiency. Never the less they admitted using those terms and targeting those groups was wrong.

The IG investigating concluded that the scrutiny was not proportional (accounting for differences in #'s of application). For example I believe he reported that 30% of orgs with a key word that might link to Progressive were targeted whereas 100% of orgs with the key word linked to Tea Party were targeted.

In short, the IRS has fully admitted their targeting system was wrong and unfairly impacted one side of the political spectrum. The IG concurred. The IRS claims the mistake was not politically motivated - just an "oopsie" attempt to be more efficient. That contention is what is being investigated.
Click to expand...

How accurate is this article, in your current understanding? IRS Look at Progressive Groups Complicates Controversy - Bloomberg Business

What has changed since it was written? It doesn't seem to paint a very sinister picture.
 
#1,987
#1,987
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Maybe because his boss told him to??? Maybe he was a pissed off Republican voter??? Maybe he's really a Dem who registers as a Republican just to f things up???

Who knows and who really cares. Is that seriously the point you would make as an attorney when defending this case??? Your Honor... I know it looks bad, and I know the actual data supports that the GOP was unfairly targeted, but that can't be true because the person who approved it isregistered as a Republican... therefore this couldn't have been unfair even though the evidence proves it was. I rest my case.
Click to expand...

Or maybe it was just not that big a deal to begin with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,988
#1,988
#1,992
#1,992
Mtntrout said:
How accurate is this article, in your current understanding? IRS Look at Progressive Groups Complicates Controversy - Bloomberg Business

What has changed since it was written? It doesn't seem to paint a very sinister picture.
Click to expand...

A couple points.

1) perhaps there was nothing sinister - it could be a complete oopsie as the IRS is claiming.

2) the IG report shows that a) a significantly greater percentage of those with conservative BOLO terms were scrutinized than those with left BOLO terms. Additionally, the level of scrutiny was more cumbersome. Again, perhaps simply a mistake.

The IRS specifically apologized to conservative groups for "disparate treatment" and acknowledge it was wrong.

The point of the investigation is to see if there was any sinister activity. At this point we cannot say.

Evidence that makes the investigation merited:

1) Disparate treatment
2) Collaboration between IRS (Lerner) and DoJ to target for criminal investigation conservative 501c(4) applicants
3) Repeated calls from Dem Congressional members (Levin, Schumer, etc) to investigate conservative 501c(4) organizations
4) Lerner's refusal to testify
5) "Loss" of Lerner's emails
6) Lerner telling people to scrub text messages
7) Shulman denying any targeting of conservatives (under oath) while activity was going on.
8) Initial blaming on "rogue agents" in Cincinnati along with denial it went any further (proven to be false)
9) Claims emails could not be recovered (proven to be false)
10) Claims email search was exhaustive and back up tapes did not exist (proven to be false).
11) IRS release of confidential information for conservative groups under review (claimed accidental release). This is a crime. Donor list of one was released to a progressive organization. Darn the luck!

That's off the top of my head.

So was there any sinister activity? Can't say. Is there enough smoke to warrant scrutiny? Absolutely.

Ultimately without Lerner's testimony or full set of emails we may never know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#1,993
#1,993
volinbham said:
A couple points.

1) perhaps there was nothing sinister - it could be a complete oopsie as the IRS is claiming.

2) the IG report shows that a) a significantly greater percentage of those with conservative BOLO terms were scrutinized than those with left BOLO terms. Additionally, the level of scrutiny was more cumbersome. Again, perhaps simply a mistake.

The IRS specifically apologized to conservative groups for "disparate treatment" and acknowledge it was wrong.

The point of the investigation is to see if there was any sinister activity. At this point we cannot say.

Evidence that makes the investigation merited:

1) Disparate treatment
2) Collaboration between IRS (Lerner) and DoJ to target for criminal investigation conservative 501c(4) applicants
3) Repeated calls from Dem Congressional members (Levin, Schumer, etc) to investigate conservative 501c(4) organizations
4) Lerner's refusal to testify
5) "Loss" of Lerner's emails
6) Lerner telling people to scrub text messages
7) Shulman denying any targeting of conservatives (under oath) while activity was going on.
8) Initial blaming on "rogue agents" in Cincinnati along with denial it went any further (proven to be false)
9) Claims emails could not be recovered (proven to be false)
10) Claims email search was exhaustive and back up tapes did not exist (proven to be false).
11) IRS release of confidential information for conservative groups under review (claimed accidental release). This is a crime. Donor list of one was released to a progressive organization. Darn the luck!

That's off the top of my head.

So was there any sinister activity? Can't say. Is there enough smoke to warrant scrutiny? Absolutely.

Ultimately without Lerner's testimony or full set of emails we may never know.
Click to expand...


While I would disagree with some of your characterizations I don't disagree with you that an investigation is merited.

And since you listed some of the points suggesting an actual sinister motive, I'll point some out that suggest otherwise.

1) there was a need to screen a huge surge of political fundraising organizations masquerading as social under the exemption. There was a reason this happened, it didn't just come out of the blue.

2) a Republican supervisor approved the screening process, suggesting that he saw the need for it and didn't think it was sinister.

3) They got approved.

4) no actual damage occurred.

There has been so much overreach here by the GOP that it's difficult to keep track of it all. So yes, go ahead and inquire, but look at the facts reasonably and rationally, and don't make inferences that are just not there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#1,995
#1,995
lawgator1 said:
1) Article says "IRS" was doing this, in effort to imply it was large scale and systematic, and in effort of course to attribute it to the "administration."

2) The IRS did not apologize for the examination of these outfits. Rather, the IRS apologized for the requests for donor lists, which is against policy.

3) The reason these groups got closer examination is because, if certain buzzwords appeared in their title, there was concern that they were fraudulently raising money and claiming tax exempt status.

The rest of it is just Tea Party groups complaining about what they perceive to be heavy handedness by the IRS, but that is not surprising given what the Tea Party activists have always had to say about the IRS.

This is another fake controversy ginned up by the far right.
Click to expand...

Their gullible followers eat this kinda sh!t up like candy ! :lol: This can't be true 'cause the right doesn't play dirty politics. :question:
 
#1,996
#1,996
This is easy... Obama wanted to target tea party group wanting to get tax exempt status or make it very difficult.. No F.. Ing way Lois Lerner acted alone.. It this was Bush doing the same for against the ACLU or NOW he would have been hung by the balls
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,998
#1,998
lawgator1 said:
While I would disagree with some of your characterizations I don't disagree with you that an investigation is merited.

And since you listed some of the points suggesting an actual sinister motive, I'll point some out that suggest otherwise.

1) there was a need to screen a huge surge of political fundraising organizations masquerading as social under the exemption. There was a reason this happened, it didn't just come out of the blue.

2) a Republican supervisor approved the screening process, suggesting that he saw the need for it and didn't think it was sinister.

3) They got approved.

4) no actual damage occurred.

There has been so much overreach here by the GOP that it's difficult to keep track of it all. So yes, go ahead and inquire, but look at the facts reasonably and rationally, and don't make inferences that are just not there.
Click to expand...

3 and 4 are incorrect.

From IRS: 'Death by delay' - Rachael Bade - POLITICO

Nearly two years after the IRS was exposed for improperly sidetracking requests for tax exemptions from tea party groups, POLITICO has learned that at least a half-dozen conservative applicants are still waiting for an answer.
Click to expand...

But most of the half dozen are mom-and-pop outfits from New Mexico to New Jersey, run by volunteers out of their own houses and operating at a fraction of Crossroads’ budget.
The years-long delay has gutted these groups’ membership, choked their ability to raise funds, forced them to reserve pots of money for possible back taxes and driven them into debt to pay legal bills.
Click to expand...

As you can see not all were approved and those waiting and those who were in limbo for years suffered real damage.

#2 is questionable as well - given what we've seen from each successful IRS director there is an sense of "F U" to the public. I could see that this Republican thought it is our business if we scrutinize everyone. He didn't personally choose each case for review so we don't know if he knew the extent the disparate treatment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,999
#1,999
volinbham said:
3 and 4 are incorrect.

From IRS: 'Death by delay' - Rachael Bade - POLITICO





As you can see not all were approved and those waiting and those who were in limbo for years suffered real damage.

#2 is questionable as well - given what we've seen from each successful IRS director there is an sense of "F U" to the public. I could see that this Republican thought it is our business if we scrutinize everyone. He didn't personally choose each case for review so we don't know if he knew the extent the disparate treatment.
Click to expand...


As I've said earlier, the obvious solution to this problem is to eliminate the exemption. Neither the left nor the right should be able to abuse the exemption so as to run political groups as "social" so as to avoid disclosure rules.

Wouldn't you agree?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top