IRS admits to targeting Conservative groups

#628
#628
Brad Woodhouse‏@woodhouseb
POTUS asked AG to review how leak investigations are done but some in the media refuse to meet with him. Kind of forfeits your right gripe.
Click to expand...

Thats the DNC director of communication
 
#631
#631
I don't see why Holder is even bothering to meet with them to try to explain the facts in a way that is less stilted than these show hearings.

They aren't interested in the facts. They just want their tv time.

If I'm Holder I say, "Look, I told you what I know. If you find some facts that demonstrate a political motivation to any of this, let me know. You know, for example like the memorandum Rand Paul said spells all that out, but then he had to immediately back off because he has no knowledge of any such made up memo. Otherwise, I'll wait for the investigation to come out and see what they think happened."

As to the other things being linked in, I am not seeing any of this as new. Or as news. Its all the same stuff repackaged by some conservative blogger and made to look like it is a new development. the blogger does it to get traffic to his site and some notoriety. The other bloggers repeat it because it perpetuates the previously existing narrative that is their agenda.

To put it in perspective for you, its like when MSNBC types would run as "breaking" the 34th guy from the Bush administration to admit there were no WMD in Iraq.

Its not breaking. Its the same, tired crap we've seen for the last 10 days +.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#632
#632
lawgator1 said:
I don't see why Holder is even bothering to meet with them to try to explain the facts in a way that is less stilted than these show hearings.

They aren't interested in the facts. They just want their tv time.

If I'm Holder I say, "Look, I told you what I know. If you find some facts that demonstrate a political motivation to any of this, let me know. You know, for example like the memorandum Rand Paul said spells all that out, but then he had to immediately back off because he has no knowledge of any such made up memo. Otherwise, I'll wait for the investigation to come out and see what they think happened."

As to the other things being linked in, I am not seeing any of this as new. Or as news. Its all the same stuff repackaged by some conservative blogger and made to look like it is a new development. the blogger does it to get traffic to his site and some notoriety. The other bloggers repeat it because it perpetuates the previously existing narrative that is their agenda.

To put it in perspective for you, its like when MSNBC types would run as "breaking" the 34th guy from the Bush administration to admit there were no WMD in Iraq.

Its not breaking. Its the same, tired crap we've seen for the last 10 days +.
Click to expand...

:snoring:
 
Last edited:
#633
#633
We all want to know two things:

1) Was it politically motivated or a short cut to screen the ballooning number of such applications?

2) If it was political, who directed that it occur and who knew about that?


I've seen zero evidence so far that it was politically motivated as opposed to a screening mechanism. Show me that, and I'll consider changing my perspective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#634
#634
Interesting comment to the CNN article, anyone seen this before?

Robo
Yet, these same organizations met with Carney for his OTR "press conference" on how to be quiet about the scandals. And this is the same media who is not reporting the known fact that the IRS illegally obtain private medical records (NOT BILLING INFORMATION!) HIPAA protected medical records!

May 30, 2013 10:18 am at 10:18 am |
Click to expand...

Nevermind, found it easily. Overlooked this little thing 2 weeks ago...

Suit Alleges IRS Improperly Seized 60 Million Personal Medical Records - Forbes
 
Last edited:
#635
#635
lawgator1 said:
We all want to know two things:

1) Was it politically motivated or a short cut to screen the ballooning number of such applications?

2) If it was political, who directed that it occur and who knew about that?


I've seen zero evidence so far that it was politically motivated as opposed to a screening mechanism. Show me that, and I'll consider changing my perspective.
Click to expand...

:snoring:
 
#636
#636
lawgator1 said:
We all want to know two things:

1) Was it politically motivated or a short cut to screen the ballooning number of such applications?

2) If it was political, who directed that it occur and who knew about that?


I've seen zero evidence so far that it was politically motivated as opposed to a screening mechanism. Show me that, and I'll consider changing my perspective.
Click to expand...

87 questions with thousands of supporting documentation is a short cut?
 
#637
#637
lawgator1 said:
We all want to know two things:

1) Was it politically motivated or a short cut to screen the ballooning number of such applications?

2) If it was political, who directed that it occur and who knew about that?


I've seen zero evidence so far that it was politically motivated as opposed to a screening mechanism. Show me that, and I'll consider changing my perspective.
Click to expand...

What makes you think that, what can only be described as one of the most powerful organized criminal organizations (the government), would ever let this information get out?
 
#638
#638
Wow...

“No search warrant authorized the seizure of these records; no subpoena authorized the seizure of these records; none of the 10,000,000 Americans were under any kind of known criminal or civil investigation and their medical records had no relevance whatsoever to the IRS search. IT personnel at the scene, a HIPAA facility warning on the building and the IT portion of the searched premises, and the company executives each warned the IRS agents of these privileged records,” it continued.

The claim asserts that the IRS agents’ seizure of medical records violated the 4th Amendment.

“These medical records contained intimate and private information of more than 10,000,000 Americans, information that by its nature includes information about treatment for any kind of medical concern, including psychological counseling, gynecological counseling, sexual or drug treatment, and a wide range of medical matters covering the most intimate and private of concerns,” the complaint states.

“Despite knowing that these medical records were not within the scope of the warrant, defendants threatened to ‘rip’ the servers containing the medical data out of the building if IT personnel would not voluntarily hand them over,” the complaint reads.
Click to expand...

Suit Alleges IRS Improperly Seized 60 Million Personal Medical Records - Forbes

Same link as above.
 
#640
#640
lawgator1 said:
We all want to know two things:

1) Was it politically motivated or a short cut to screen the ballooning number of such applications?

2) If it was political, who directed that it occur and who knew about that?


I've seen zero evidence so far that it was politically motivated as opposed to a screening mechanism. Show me that, and I'll consider changing my perspective.
Click to expand...

Just curious... but how else would you attribute the obvious bias of those organizations that were targeted, and the questions they were asked?

If not political, are you suggesting that the law of averages or the nature of statistics just doesn't apply?
 
#641
#641
lawgator1 said:
We all want to know two things:

1) Was it politically motivated or a short cut to screen the ballooning number of such applications?

2) If it was political, who directed that it occur and who knew about that?


I've seen zero evidence so far that it was politically motivated as opposed to a screening mechanism. Show me that, and I'll consider changing my perspective.
Click to expand...

If the TSA were to use "shortcuts" to cut down on screening wait times or the police were to use "shortcuts" in their line of work, I'm pretty sure you'd see that as discrimination.

In this case, however, a shortcut could be justified if it were able to streamline the workflow, right?

Never mind the ignorance you are assuming on part of the IRS if they see this as anything other than politically motivated...
 
#642
#642
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Just curious... but how else would you attribute the obvious bias of those organizations that were targeted, and the questions they were asked?

If not political, are you suggesting that the law of averages or the nature of statistics just doesn't apply?
Click to expand...

Because it was those groups where all the growth was and it was those groups seeking tax exempt status as a social organization despite being overtly political.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#643
#643
Add this to the mix

IRS Chief Visited White House 118 Times Under Obama, Vs. 1 For Bush - Investors.com

One IRS commissioner visited Obama's White House 118 times in 2010 and 2011. His successor also dropped in often. But under George W. Bush, the tax chief visited once in four years.

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: IRS Chief Visited White House 118 Times Under Obama, Vs. 1 For Bush - Investors.com
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
Click to expand...

Kind of ironic since Carney's has been playing the old "WH can't talk to the IRS about operations" card to explain why the WH had no knowledge and can't involve themselves with the mess.
 
#644
#644
#645
#645
lawgator1 said:
We all want to know two things:

1) Was it politically motivated or a short cut to screen the ballooning number of such applications?

2) If it was political, who directed that it occur and who knew about that?


I've seen zero evidence so far that it was politically motivated as opposed to a screening mechanism. Show me that, and I'll consider changing my perspective.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't believe the nose on your face if you saw it in a mirror.
 
#646
#646
lawgator1 said:
Because it was those groups where all the growth was and it was those groups seeking tax exempt status as a social organization despite being overtly political.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the whole we had to to target them b/c they were growing so darn fast fails after looking at when the targeting began. The Washington Post looked at this and said, "While there was an increase in 2010, it was relatively small. The real jump did not come until 2011, long after the targeting of conservative groups had been implemented." A bushel of Pinocchios for IRS’s Lois Lerner - The Washington Post


So, they started the targeting before there was the big increase in conservative groups applying.
 
#647
#647
Gramps said:
Don't these idiots realize records are kept and are easily accessible?
Click to expand...

I really don't think they care.

Lets be honest, if they wouldn't have started attacking the press none of this would have been reported.
 
#648
#648
Vol4LifeLCA said:
Unfortunately the whole we had to to target them b/c they were growing so darn fast fails after looking at when the targeting began. The Washington Post looked at this and said, "While there was an increase in 2010, it was relatively small. The real jump did not come until 2011, long after the targeting of conservative groups had been implemented." A bushel of Pinocchios for IRS’s Lois Lerner - The Washington Post


So, they started the targeting before there was the big increase in conservative groups applying.
Click to expand...

Facts are irrelevant
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#650
#650
lawgator1 said:
Because it was those groups where all the growth was and it was those groups seeking tax exempt status as a social organization despite being overtly political.
Click to expand...

Care to venture a second guess??? You're honestly trying to suggest that there were significantly less similar liberal groups applying for the same status?

In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked. That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn't be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months. In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows. As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with liberal-sounding names had their applications approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," the liberal groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups.
Click to expand...

Lerner also reportedly fast-tracked an approval for a foundation operated by President Obama's half brother, taking the extraordinary step of granting it retroactive tax-free status.
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top