IRS admits to targeting Conservative groups

[SpaceCoastVol]

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

I hope this gets drawn out for 2 years. that way that worthless ***** will go to prison where she belongs.

 

[Biopsyman]

I hope this gets drawn out for 2 years. that way that worthless ***** will go to prison where she belongs.

He will be out of office and building his library

 

[utvolpj]

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

Based on your extensive work chronicling the fight between the old guard GOP and the TP that is more a sign that it likely did happen as described. Simply calling him a republican doesn't do the damage you think it does. In fact it's irrelevant

 

[37L1]

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.

Three out of the four of the above are lies.

4. They were taken off of the playing field during the run up to the 2012 Presidential election, tilting the advantage toward Obama and hurting Romney.

3. and 4. Many have not been approved after over 5 years of their application and are paying legal fees that cost $$ to finally get approved.

1. The screening was directed primarily at Republican/Tea Party organizations to such an obvious extent that the IRS publicly apologized. That didn't just happen out of the blue. The reason it happened was as a direct result of the climate generated by certain Democratic Senators who demanded this scrutiny and by the President himself in the State of the Union where he publicly chastised the Supreme Court for its decision.

 

[lawgator1]

Three out of the four of the above are lies.

4. They were taken off of the playing field during the run up to the 2012 Presidential election, tilting the advantage toward Obama and hurting Romney.

3. and 4. Many have not been approved after over 5 years of their application and are paying legal fees that cost $$ to finally get approved.

1. The screening was directed primarily at Republican/Tea Party organizations to such an obvious extent that the IRS publicly apologized. That didn't just happen out of the blue. The reason it happened was as a direct result of the climate generated by certain Democratic Senators who demanded this scrutiny and by the President himself in the State of the Union where he publicly chastised the Supreme Court for its decision.

Really? Using this as an excuse for why that wet noodle Romney's lost?

I've seen it all, now.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

He will be out of office and building his library

Yup. thats my point

 

[hog88]

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?

Completely beside the point. While I agree with you on eliminating the exemption it has no bearing on whether or not laws were broken.

 

[37L1]

Really? Using this as an excuse for why that wet noodle Romney's lost?

I've seen it all, now.

Not the only reason why he lost, but it sure didn't help, you ninny.

How about addressing your lies?

Oh, that's right, avoid them by putting up a strawman to divert.

Figgin' lawyers. . .

 

[lawgator1]

Completely beside the point. While I agree with you on eliminating the exemption it has no bearing on whether or not laws were broken.

That's true, but its the obvious solution to the claim that study of the applicant groups claiming it is actually in some way unfair to the groups.

Lost in the noise of all of this is the irony that you are complaining that blatantly political groups are trying to avoid taxation and disclosure requirements under the guise of being social.

You all talk a mean game about how abusive tax exemptions have become. Here is one staring you right in the face, and all you do is whine about how some of your own had their applications delayed.

 

[hog88]

That's true, but its the obvious solution to the claim that study of the applicant groups claiming it is actually in some way unfair to the groups.

Lost in the noise of all of this is the irony that you are complaining that blatantly political groups are trying to avoid taxation and disclosure requirements under the guise of being social.

You all talk a mean game about how abusive tax exemptions have become. Here is one staring you right in the face, and all you do is whine about how some of your own had their applications delayed.

I'm in the camp of eliminating ALL exemptions and deductions bubba. Hell I believe churches should pay property taxes.

No of that is relevant to the fact crimes were in all likelihood committed.

 

[lawgator1]

I'm in the camp of eliminating ALL exemptions and deductions bubba. Hell I believe churches should pay property taxes.

No of that is relevant to the fact crimes were in all likelihood committed.

I agree. If someone adopted this criteria for the purpose of bias against a particular group or viewpoint, then that should result in whatever penalty is called for under the relevant statutes.

That would include the Republican supervisor who approved it.

 

[hog88]

I agree. If someone adopted this criteria for the purpose of bias against a particular group or viewpoint, then that should result in whatever penalty is called for under the relevant statutes.

That would include the Republican supervisor who approved it.

Him and anyone above him that knew, didn't stop it, conspired with him or approved.

The fact that this man was a registered (I don't no for sure) or donated to the Republican party is irrelevant.

 

[37L1]

Him and anyone above him that knew, didn't stop it, conspired with him or approved.

The fact that this man was a registered (I don't no for sure) or donated to the Republican party is irrelevant.

Not for LG, that is his fig leaf to cover all the other BS.

 

[lawgator1]

Him and anyone above him that knew, didn't stop it, conspired with him or approved.

The fact that this man was a registered (I don't no for sure) or donated to the Republican party is irrelevant.

I actually don't know a ton of the details on him, either. I recall hearing however that he is quite an active Republican and very conservative. So naturally we don't hear on Fox a lot about him supporting use of the criteria, do we?

Why, that would destroy the whole premise of the whining .... And we can't have that.

 

[hog88]

I actually don't know a ton of the details on him, either. I recall hearing however that he is quite an active Republican and very conservative. So naturally we don't hear on Fox a lot about him supporting use of the criteria, do we?

Why, that would destroy the whole premise of the whining .... And we can't have that.

Common sense tells us that this didn't start or end with him. If it did the higher ups within the IRS, DOJ and Administration would have quickly thrown him under the bus. His emails would have been quickly turned over.

 

[37L1]

Here's your "Republican Supervisor"

'Conservative Republican' at IRS defends treatment of Tea Party | Reuters

John Shafer, who described himself as "a conservative Republican," told congressional investigators he flagged the first application for tax-exempt status from a Tea Party-aligned group that he and a lower-level agent came across in February 2010 because it was a new, high-profile issue.

This is where the "blame Cincinnati office" came from.

 

[utvolpj]

I actually don't know a ton of the details on him, either. I recall hearing however that he is quite an active Republican and very conservative. So naturally we don't hear on Fox a lot about him supporting use of the criteria, do we?

Why, that would destroy the whole premise of the whining .... And we can't have that.

Again with the untruths. You yourself have outlined many, many times why a republican might be involved. Your tank of excuses is clearly running low and it's funny to see you scrape and claw for any small morsel to deflect from this admin.

Also funny how things that were stated months ago about the availability of data turned out to be on the money. Of course at the time any suggestion of impropriety was shouted down as conspiracy theories

 

[lawgator1]

Again with the untruths. You yourself have outlined many, many times why a republican might be involved. Your tank of excuses is clearly running low and it's funny to see you scrape and claw for any small morsel to deflect from this admin.

Also funny how things that were stated months ago about the availability of data turned out to be on the money. Of course at the time any suggestion of impropriety was shouted down as conspiracy theories

Here's your "Republican Supervisor"

'Conservative Republican' at IRS defends treatment of Tea Party | Reuters

John Shafer, who described himself as "a conservative Republican," told congressional investigators he flagged the first application for tax-exempt status from a Tea Party-aligned group that he and a lower-level agent came across in February 2010 because it was a new, high-profile issue.

This is where the "blame Cincinnati office" came from.

A Republican "might" have been involved, pj?

He approved it. He authorized it. He applied the criteria himself.

Come on, why can't you just be honest and admit that his participation in it is very strong evidence that it wasn't a sinister plot, and was a really poorly conceived short cut to deal with the surge of applications at the time?

 

[hog88]

A Republican "might" have been involved, pj?

He approved it. He authorized it. He applied the criteria himself.

Come on, why can't you just be honest and admit that his participation in it is very strong evidence that it wasn't a sinister plot, and was a really poorly conceived short cut to deal with the surge of applications at the time?

Then why the stonewalling and obstruction all the way up the chain within the IRS?

 

[volinbham]

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?

Nice dodge.

Whether or not these organizations in general should or should not receive tax exempt status is irrelevant to treating different political groups disparately.

If you'd read the article I posted you'd see even an advocate for removing the exemption condemns the IRS activity.

 

[lawgator1]

Nice dodge.

Whether or not these organizations in general should or should not receive tax exempt status is irrelevant to treating different political groups disparately.

If you'd read the article I posted you'd see even an advocate for removing the exemption condemns the IRS activity.

^^^^^

Republicans approve this post.



Perhaps we should have an investigation...

 

[volinbham]

A Republican "might" have been involved, pj?

He approved it. He authorized it. He applied the criteria himself.

Come on, why can't you just be honest and admit that his participation in it is very strong evidence that it wasn't a sinister plot, and was a really poorly conceived short cut to deal with the surge of applications at the time?

Very strong? How did you come up with that.

Interesting too that your position throughout this thread is that there is ZERO evidence of political motivation yet now you find "very strong evidence" because of the party affiliation of one member?

Alright then - Lois Lerner is a Democrat. That is very strong evidence that her actions were politically motivated...

 

[utvolpj]

A Republican "might" have been involved, pj?

He approved it. He authorized it. He applied the criteria himself.

Come on, why can't you just be honest and admit that his participation in it is very strong evidence that it wasn't a sinister plot, and was a really poorly conceived short cut to deal with the surge of applications at the time?

Clearly you misunderstood my statement and what "might" actually meant in context.

You claim the old party repubs are out to take down the TP wing. You have actually spammed this forum with that exact message. That shows that you are ascribing a motive to this one republican that is in conflict with your stated beliefs. It's funny to watch you squirm and continually shift positions to defend these acts.

 

[utvolpj]

^^^^^

Republicans approve this post.



Perhaps we should have an investigation...

Tell the IRS to turn over the documents needed to begin the investigation. You know, the docs they claimed to have worked tirelessly to retrieve only to find they had been recycled.

 

[lawgator1]

Clearly you misunderstood my statement and what "might" actually meant in context.

You claim the old party repubs are out to take down the TP wing. You have actually spammed this forum with that exact message. That shows that you are ascribing a motive to this one republican that is in conflict with your stated beliefs. It's funny to watch you squirm and continually shift positions to defend these acts.

Your definition of "spam" and my definition are very different.

The rest of your post is incoherent gibberish. The FACT is a conservative Republican manager at the IRS was FULLY aware of the proposal to use this screening process.

He AUTHORIZED its use.

He, HIMSELF, used it.

The reason given by the IRS for it is that there had been this big influx of new applications, and they were trying to figure out how to screen them so as to distinguish between political operations, and social ones.

No amount of claiming I'm dodging things, or complaining about Lerner, or open speculation that some mysterious "others" were involved changes these very simple, straightforward, FACTS.

If you think I'm banning or trolling, by explaining these things, then either you, or me, does not belong here. (Hint, it would be you.)