IRS admits to targeting Conservative groups

#1,227
#1,227
lawgator1 said:
The use of political labels to do searches does not equal doing it out of dislike for a given political viewpoint. It was a mechanism of expediency.
Click to expand...

So the keywords used in the searches were...?

And again, what was the percentage of conservative groups to more liberal groups?

And did or didn't a member of the same House committee that was investigating this ask for the IRS to look into a conservative group in their own district? And was that group opposed to said committee member or for?

And you still avoid the question of convenience. Is it or is it not convenient that suddenly the key member of the IRS investigation loses all the email traffic from 2011 and prior? The very same individual that has taken the 5th Amendment repeatedly? And the very person who is the link between how far up this goes? And convenient that the federal government that can store exabytes of data in just one location suddenly can't find routine email traffic?

You're telling me this is apolitical and doesn't strike you as odd in any way, shape or form?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,229
#1,229
Grand Vol said:
So the keywords used in the searches were...?

And again, what was the percentage of conservative groups to more liberal groups?

And did or didn't a member of the same House committee that was investigating this ask for the IRS to look into a conservative group in their own district? And was that group opposed to said committee member or for?

And you still avoid the question of convenience. Is it or is it not convenient that suddenly the key member of the IRS investigation loses all the email traffic from 2011 and prior? The very same individual that has taken the 5th Amendment repeatedly? And the very person who is the link between how far up this goes? And convenient that the federal government that can store exabytes of data in just one location suddenly can't find routine email traffic?

You're telling me this is apolitical and doesn't strike you as odd in any way, shape or form?
Click to expand...

Save your breath - all the evidence linking multiple Dem law makers to the investigation of conservative groups and applicants (demanding that the IRS deny tax exempt status and requests for information about donors to the groups), the evidence linking the program to IRS HQ, the actual #'s of who was hassled, delayed and denied, the examples of illegal sharing of information with opposition groups, the discussions with the administration of what form they'd like info on conservative groups delivered (including information illegal to disseminate), the consistent lying from the administration (even as recently as the Superbowl interview with POTUS) that this was simply a rogue action out of Cincinnati, they choice of words associated exclusively with conservative groups as screening criteria, etc is all ignored.

It was just an innocent booboo and now we're told (well over a year after emails were requested) that those emails are all gone.

Nope, no smoke here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,231
#1,231
In March of this year the IRS commissioner testified he would comply with a House subpoena and deliver all of Lois Lerner's emails.

If her computer crashed in 2011 and the IRS had been working for a year to cobble together her emails why would he not say under testimony that the vast majority of her emails had been lost?

Also, in the testimony he repeatedly said that the emails were archived.

Hmmmmm.

I also would believe that the IRS is legally obligated to maintain emails
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,232
#1,232
volinbham said:
I also would believe that the IRS is legally obligated to maintain emails
Click to expand...

I actually think that's a Federal Code. I'd have to dip into my former life of .mil man and do some research, but there are federal laws surrounding the archival of documents to include electronic records.

Just don't ask me what they are right now. I fell asleep during that portion of the training.
 
#1,233
#1,233
Grand Vol said:
So the keywords used in the searches were...?

And again, what was the percentage of conservative groups to more liberal groups?

And did or didn't a member of the same House committee that was investigating this ask for the IRS to look into a conservative group in their own district? And was that group opposed to said committee member or for?

And you still avoid the question of convenience. Is it or is it not convenient that suddenly the key member of the IRS investigation loses all the email traffic from 2011 and prior? The very same individual that has taken the 5th Amendment repeatedly? And the very person who is the link between how far up this goes? And convenient that the federal government that can store exabytes of data in just one location suddenly can't find routine email traffic?

You're telling me this is apolitical and doesn't strike you as odd in any way, shape or form?
Click to expand...


The number that were conservative was much higher than liberal because, after Citizens United, there were many many many times more conservative front groups for anonymous and tax free political spending than left leaning. Their names also had a tendency to use misleading labels that fit the profile.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,234
#1,234
volinbham said:
In March of this year the IRS commissioner testified he would comply with a House subpoena and deliver all of Lois Lerner's emails.

If her computer crashed in 2011 and the IRS had been working for a year to cobble together her emails why would he not say under testimony that the vast majority of her emails had been lost?

Also, in the testimony he repeatedly said that the emails were archived.

Hmmmmm.

I also would believe that the IRS is legally obligated to maintain emails
Click to expand...


I would have thought so, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,235
#1,235
lawgator1 said:
The number that were conservative was much higher than liberal because, after Citizens United, there were many many many times more conservative front groups for anonymous and tax free political spending than left leaning. Their names also had a tendency to use misleading labels that fit the profile.
Click to expand...

So you're telling me this was apolitical and it doesn't strike you as odd in any way, shape or form that suddenly emails were "lost" concerning the very investigation going forward?

Please tell me you can put aside partisan nonsense for a single moment in time and look at this objectively. Maybe even from a legal standpoint. If suddenly one side of the case "lost" evidence during a trial, what do you think the judge is going to do? Especially if that evidence happened to be possibly incriminating?

You're seriously giving me a WTF day here.
 
#1,238
#1,238
Grand Vol said:
So you're telling me this was apolitical and it doesn't strike you as odd in any way, shape or form that suddenly emails were "lost" concerning the very investigation going forward?

Please tell me you can put aside partisan nonsense for a single moment in time and look at this objectively. Maybe even from a legal standpoint. If suddenly one side of the case "lost" evidence during a trial, what do you think the judge is going to do? Especially if that evidence happened to be possibly incriminating?

You're seriously giving me a WTF day here.
Click to expand...


Of course it looks bad. If it is true that it happened in 2011, however, I think that makes the issue kind of pointless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,239
#1,239
lawgator1 said:
Of course it looks bad. If it is true that it happened in 2011, however, I think that makes the issue kind of pointless.
Click to expand...

Not just 2011 my friend. It went from 2010 to at least 2012 to include the esteemed Elijah Cummings asking for help with his group. (even after being placed on the select committee if memory serves)

Maybe even beyond since I'm not sure how many of those groups are still waiting on approval of their tax exempt status.

The IRS Scandal: Timeline - Discover the Networks
 
#1,240
#1,240
lawgator1 said:
Of course it looks bad. If it is true that it happened in 2011, however, I think that makes the issue kind of pointless.
Click to expand...

Pointless...

When does the Executive Branch and it's agencies have too much power before you think it's going too far?

NSA domestic spying? IRS targeting political groups? Labeling of former service members as potential terrorists? Running guns into Mexico to arm the cartels? Monitoring the press? Excluding selected members of the press from the White House? Perjury of the nation's top law enforcement official? The agency that's supposed to be making sure your tax dollars are being spent correctly blowing nearly a million dollars on clowns and fortune tellers? Ignoring American veterans even though it was an item from the campaign? Ignoring possible voter intimidation?

When is it too much? What's the straw that breaks the camel's back with you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,241
#1,241
Grand Vol said:
Not just 2011 my friend. It went from 2010 to at least 2012 to include the esteemed Elijah Cummings asking for help with his group. (even after being placed on the select committee if memory serves)

Maybe even beyond since I'm not sure how many of those groups are still waiting on approval of their tax exempt status.

The IRS Scandal: Timeline - Discover the Networks
Click to expand...



I'm talking about the emails. Pre - crash in 2011 the best they have been able to do is to find emails people were copied on. It appears they have and produced the ones after the crash.

To ascribe a shenanigans motive to that seems hindered by the fact no one knew it was an issue in 2011.

Now, the backup failure, or inability to retrieve them dome other way, that's deserving of some review and questions as that seems strange. I am sure the committee will get some testimony on that. Sadly, regardless of the facts, it will be spun by Issa and his colleagues as nefarious.

Had they not cried wolf 164 times before this then maybe they'd have some credibility on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,242
#1,242
lawgator1 said:
I'm talking about the emails. Pre - crash in 2011 the best they have been able to do is to find emails people were copied on. It appears they have and produced the ones after the crash.

To ascribe a shenanigans motive to that seems hindered by the fact no one knew it was an issue in 2011.

Now, the backup failure, or inability to retrieve them dome other way, that's deserving of some review and questions as that seems strange. I am sure the committee will get some testimony on that. Sadly, regardless of the facts, it will be spun by Issa and his colleagues as nefarious.

Had they not cried wolf 164 times before this then maybe they'd have some credibility on it.
Click to expand...

The first question I would ask would be:

"Why did it take an entire year to tell us you couldn't get the emails to us?"
 
#1,243
#1,243
lawgator1 said:
I'm talking about the emails. Pre - crash in 2011 the best they have been able to do is to find emails people were copied on. It appears they have and produced the ones after the crash.

To ascribe a shenanigans motive to that seems hindered by the fact no one knew it was an issue in 2011.

Now, the backup failure, or inability to retrieve them dome other way, that's deserving of some review and questions as that seems strange. I am sure the committee will get some testimony on that. Sadly, regardless of the facts, it will be spun by Issa and his colleagues as nefarious.

Had they not cried wolf 164 times before this then maybe they'd have some credibility on it.
Click to expand...

The shenanigans are heightened by the fact that IRS didn't tell anyone about this until Friday even though it happened 3 years ago, they were asked for the emails at least a year ago and the Director testified in March he could comply with the subpoena.

Issa's credibility is not at stake here. Besides, there are multiple House committees seeking this info.
 
#1,244
#1,244
lawgator1 said:
I'm talking about the emails. Pre - crash in 2011 the best they have been able to do is to find emails people were copied on. It appears they have and produced the ones after the crash.

To ascribe a shenanigans motive to that seems hindered by the fact no one knew it was an issue in 2011.

Now, the backup failure, or inability to retrieve them dome other way, that's deserving of some review and questions as that seems strange. I am sure the committee will get some testimony on that. Sadly, regardless of the facts, it will be spun by Issa and his colleagues as nefarious.

Had they not cried wolf 164 times before this then maybe they'd have some credibility on it.
Click to expand...

Proving once again you're nothing but a shill for the corrupt gang running America.
 
#1,247
#1,247
lawgator1 said:
I imagine it's because they wanted to produce as much as they could and they were trying to retrieve things off her computer forensicaly.
Click to expand...

lol

As an attorney, would you accept this answer without the follow up of "you think you might have mentioned that LAST year?"
 
#1,248
#1,248
Grand Vol said:
lol

As an attorney, would you accept this answer without the follow up of "you think you might have mentioned that LAST year?"
Click to expand...


I don't know when the request was sent or what the communication was like before now. Fact is these things are negotiated back and forth for long periods.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,249
#1,249
lawgator1 said:
I don't know when the request was sent or what the communication was like before now. Fact is these things are negotiated back and forth for long periods.
Click to expand...

I'm going to go out on a limb and say chances of them asking for them last week are slim to none with the outrage that's been expressed.

I'd be willing to bet it's been far longer than you give it credit for.
 
#1,250
#1,250
Grand Vol said:
I'm going to go out on a limb and say chances of them asking for them last week are slim to none with the outrage that's been expressed.

I'd be willing to bet it's been far longer than you give it credit for.
Click to expand...


Ok

But you don't know what the discussions and compromises have been. You don't know how long they said they needed, what the agreements have been, delays, meetings, conferences, etc. You shouldn't assume so much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top