IRS admits to targeting Conservative groups

Uh oh...

From today's WSJ

In 2009 a pro-Israel group called Z Street applied to the IRS for tax-exempt status. When the process was delayed, an IRS agent told the group that its application was undergoing special review because "these cases are being sent to a special unit in the D.C. office to determine whether the organization's activities contradict the Administration's public policies." In August 2010 Z Street sued the IRS on grounds that this selective processing of its application amounted to viewpoint discrimination.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and legal precedent, once the suit was filed the IRS was required to preserve all evidence relevant to the viewpoint-discrimination charge. That means that no matter what dog ate Lois Lerner's hard drive or what the IRS habit was of recycling the tapes used to back up its email records of taxpayer information, it had a legal duty not to destroy the evidence in ongoing litigation.

In private white-collar cases, companies facing a lawsuit routinely operate under what is known as a "litigation hold," instructing employees to affirmatively retain all documents related to the potential litigation. A failure to do that and any resulting document loss amounts to what is called "willful spoliation," or deliberate destruction of evidence if any of the destroyed documents were potentially relevant to the litigation.

At the IRS, that requirement applied to all correspondence regarding Z Street, as well as to information related to the vetting of conservative groups whose applications for tax-exempt status were delayed during an election season. Instead, and incredibly, the IRS cancelled its contract with email-archiving firm Sonasoft shortly after Ms. Lerner's computer "crash" in June 2011.

So, even if Lerner's hard drive crash was 100% coincidental, her emails should have been under a litigation hold. No matter what the policy was on recycling the backups, it should not have been followed until the Z Street case was complete.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Lerner Set IRS Sights on Sen. Grassley After Invite Mix-Up - ABC News

Uh-oh. If this level is referred for an "exam" (audit) over something like this, what else has Ms. Lerner been up to? Those missing emails just got more interesting and important.

“This kind of thing fuels the deep concerns many people have about political targeting by the IRS and by officials at the highest levels,” Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote in a statement this evening. “It’s very troubling that a simple clerical mix-up could get a taxpayer immediately referred for an IRS exam without any due diligence from agency officials.”

"We have seen a lot of unbelievable things in this investigation, but the fact that Lois Lerner attempted to initiate an apparently baseless IRS examination against a sitting Republican United States Senator is shocking,” Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp wrote in a statement. “At every turn, Lerner was using the IRS as a tool for political purposes in defiance of taxpayer rights.”
 
Last edited:
1-26050b815d.jpg
 
So I take it by your lack of citation to any evidence that you agree with me that Rush should retract that statement.

So do you oppose the entire Bill of Rights or just the First and Second Amendment? Damn that freedom of speech and right to bear arms.
 
So do you oppose the entire Bill of Rights or just the First and Second Amendment? Damn that freedom of speech and right to bear arms.

Statists believe they should be the arbiters of right and wrong and goodness and non goodness.
 
I'm just saying, the broader and wider the GOP suggests, the more likely it would seem that there is some evidence to substantiate the claim that it was politically motivated and directed or at least coordinated. That there has been no such evidence is interesting.

How about the Grassley email?
 
What's offensive about that email? They are making sure someone reports income. Isn't that her job?

You can't be serious.

1. She has no indication that he accepted the invitation
2. Even if he had, she has no indication that his wife did and that was improper
3. Even if the wife did and it counts as income he had not filed yet
4. She is suggesting it be sent to exam - you know Audit. That is not her job; particularly in a situation like this where she had so little information. Her colleagues gently talked her down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
You can't be serious.

1. She has no indication that he accepted the invitation
2. Even if he had, she has no indication that his wife did and that was improper
3. Even if the wife did and it counts as income he had not filed yet
4. She is suggesting it be sent to exam - you know Audit. That is not her job; particularly in a situation like this where she had so little information. Her colleagues gently talked her down.

Not to mention, she is Director of Exempt Organizations. So in no shape form or fashion is it her job to exam someone's personal income.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
She's out of her mind, to suggest an audit based on that for a Senator that sits on a committee that oversees her department?

If she would do that based upon so little, the obvious following questions would be: What else has she done and who was aware of what she was doing?

The gun may not be smoking but it is warm and has Lerner's fingerprints on it.
 
Not to mention, she is Director of Exempt Organizations. So in no shape form or fashion is it her job to exam someone's personal income.

right. At a minimum it shows her to be an over zealous employee who doesn't understand the tax code.

we're once again seeing the "is it just incompetence or is it more" question. Neither answer is good.
 
right. At a minimum it shows her to be an over zealous employee who doesn't understand the tax code.

we're once again seeing the "is it just incompetence or is it more" question. Neither answer is good.

It's not incompetence, it's a concerted effort. There is no way a carreer bureaucrat takes on a scheme of this magnitude without direction and top cover.
 
Another thing problematic with the email is that she includes that she doesn't want to be associated with Grassley on the issue for which they were both invited leaders.

How on earth is that relevant to whether a potential tax violation may occur?

Sure looks like her "tough" look at this was tied to her disagreement with Grassley on some issue. That should scare everyone.
 
It's gotten to the point where a special prosecutor must be appointed, someone who independent of the DOJ can compel testimony and hold someone like LL in contempt.
 
Has the Democrat party become the Nazi party? They sure seem to be employing their tactics. A great book to read about the Nazi's is called "In the Garden of Beasts." It is about the US ambassador to Germany in the 1930's and details many methods the Nazi's used. This executive administration has Nazi stamped all over it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
I find it worrisome that in government these days it seems incompetence is often synonymous "no big deal".

right - at a minimum it is an indictment of the crowd that favors government solutions.

The irony of Obama's reign is that the guy who most believed government is the solution is destroying the confidence in government to solve problems.
 
Advertisement

Back
Top