IRS admits to targeting Conservative groups

#826
#826
volinbham said:
At a minimum it was based on political affiliation - that has been repeatedly established and admitted to.

We now know that the directive for additional scrutiny and the creation of the ridiculous questionnaires came from both Lois Lerner's office AND the IRS Chief Counsel who is both an Obama appointee AND long time Democrat operative. The testimony today (from a 48 year veteran of the IRS) indicated he has NEVER seen this type of activity.

We also know that the IRS HQ was completely lying when they claimed this was just rogue agents in Cincy.

We also know that the IRS visited the WH a massive number of times.

We also know that Obama's team was aware of the problems yet did nothing to investigate or stop the activity.

No smoking gun yet but there is plenty of evidence for probable cause of direct political motivation to go after conservative groups.

Evidence is mounting and as it does we see higher ups testifying.
Click to expand...


You aren't identifying any evidence. Just the same old complaint, to which everyone, including Obama, agrees.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#827
#827
VOLinthaNATI said:
IRS officials in Washington ordered special scrutiny: congressional investigation finds - Washington Times

"Carter Hull, a tax law specialist with 48 years of experience at the IRS, told investigators that Lois Lerner, the former head of the Exempt Organizations division, demanded he send some of the reviews of tea party groups to the IRS chief counsel’s office in Washington. The chief counsel is one of two political appointees in the IRS."

So is Mr. Hull willfully lying under oath?
Click to expand...


Did he say it was politically motivated? Did I miss something?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#828
#828
lawgator1 said:
You are actually engaging in the worst argument you could possibly make. But go ahead. I'll ask. What evidence do you have that Obama or his campaign ordered the IRS to target conservative groups?

Just point me to the evidence.
Click to expand...

Dodge. Nice work staying consistent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#829
#829
lawgator1 said:
Did he say it was politically motivated? Did I miss something?
Click to expand...

Stop being a damn fool! It's getting absurd.

How about you give me evidence that Lerner's actions weren't politically motivated? You know, because it seems she ordered Tea Party application for extra scrutiny and the IRS has admitted as much and not liberal groups.
 
#830
#830
lawgator1 said:
You aren't identifying any evidence. Just the same old complaint, to which everyone, including Obama, agrees.
Click to expand...

BS - there is plenty of evidence. It may not be conclusive but what I presented is clearly evidence.

You rag the board about intellectual dishonesty...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#832
#832
LG there is not going to be some video that comes out showing Obama personally discussing this issue and you damn well know it. That's why you keep coming with the same garbage. It makes you look like an idiot.
 
#833
#833
volinbham said:
BS - there is plenty of evidence. It may not be conclusive but what I presented is clearly evidence.

You rag the board about intellectual dishonesty...
Click to expand...


the problem with y'all's logic on this is that your entire claim comes down to the fact that TP groups got targeted and they don't like the POTUS. You then completely jump to the conclusion that someone instigated this for political reasons.

This despite the fact that it was a conservative Republican and his employee who came up with the program. This despite the fact that some liberal groups were also delayed. And this despite the fact that so far the only group known to have had their application turned down was one for Democrats.

None of those facts, standing alone, would prove much of anything. But weighed against the entire absence of any evidence of what you theorize on your end, those facts suggest Issa is wasting everyone's time with this charade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#834
#834
VOLinthaNATI said:
LG there is not going to be some video that comes out showing Obama personally discussing this issue and you damn well know it. That's why you keep coming with the same garbage. It makes you look like an idiot.
Click to expand...


I'm not asking for video.

I am, however, asking for some evidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#835
#835
lawgator1 said:
You aren't identifying any evidence. Just the same old complaint, to which everyone, including Obama, agrees.
Click to expand...

You need to define the word evidence for me because there are a lot of sworn statements, visitor logs and written memoranda that back up that list of activities. Anyone else would call it evidence.
 
#837
#837
Chaffetz (R-Utah) nails it.

“I’m proud of the fact that we are pursuing this. If we did what the White House wanted us to do, if we did what the ranking member suggested we do, this thing would be over. ‘Nothing here!’ ‘Don’t do it!’ ‘As far as I’m concerned it’s over,’ Chaffetz (R-Utah) said during a House Oversight Committee hearing.

Chaffetz was referring to ranking member Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) who said last month the IRS case was “solved.”

“When you have the spokesman for the president of the United States make a definitive statement that it was two rogue agents, and start poking at these people who have no power to do anything about it, that is wrong,” Chaffetz continued. “How dare anybody suggest we’re at the end of this? This is the beginning of this. We have to make an example out of it, we need to get to the bottom of it and quite frankly I’m tired of this administration having to keep having these hearings.”
Click to expand...

Rep. Jason Chaffetz Explodes at IRS Panel: Tired of Obama Admin. Needing to Keep Having These Hearings | Video | TheBlaze.com
 
#838
#838
YorkVol said:
You need to define the word evidence for me because there are a lot of sworn statements, visitor logs and written memoranda that back up that list of activities. Anyone else would call it evidence.
Click to expand...


Re logs, yes, there are logs showing that people (or actually a lot of times their staff) went to the WH over the years. It proves nothing as they of course had business there. You are just outright making it up that they were thereto talk about targeting TP groups.

Re sworn statements. Of what? Has anyone said they did this out of political motivation? No. In fact, the original screening criteria came from a guy working for a supervisor who is a conservative Republican and okayed it.

Memoranda. Which ones? The ones that talked about the criteria? The criteria that came form the office of a guy whose conservative Republican boss okayed it? Someother memoranda? Which?

See, this is how this kind of nonsense is perpetuated. There are memoranda, statements, logs! Oh my gosh how terrible!

But then it turns out none of it proves anything. In fact, most of it tends to disprove the claim.


VOLinthaNATI said:
Serious question, do you even take yourself seriously?

Not trying to flame, just curious.
Click to expand...

I take very seriously the claim that this was done at the direction of someone in the WH or in the Obama campaign. That would be a crime and one worth close examination and punishment.

I do take that allegation seriously.

And so before I make that leap of illogic with you, I want to see some reason to think it is true other than the rank political speculation of Issa or Palin.

Indeed, I would think that people who do take the allegation seriously, no matter what side of the political fence they sit, would also be intensely curious as to whether there are any facts to support the charge.

so, yes, I take it seriously. Do you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#840
#840
lawgator1 said:
You aren't identifying any evidence. Just the same old complaint, to which everyone, including Obama, agrees.
Click to expand...

The call for evidence is idiotic. The intent of hearings and calls for documentation is to gather evidence in light of some clearly illegal actions. The ultimate end is to ascertain the genesis of the program.

Given that there the beneficiaries of these actions are democratic politicians, the culprits are already narrowed down. The hearings and data gathering are the only way to find the shatheads driving this program.

GTFO with your evidence bs. If people already had it, the appropriate firings would be moving.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#841
#841
utvolpj said:
if you took it seriously you would want to see it investigated fully
Click to expand...


I'm okay with that. Go ahead.

The problem is getting ahead of themselves claiming they have proof of something and then upon questioning have to admit they are still looking for it.

I think even some conservative commentators have remarked that the committee and Issa in particular have let their hope and zeal that they can come up with something get the better of their judgment about what they can show and really can't, at least at this point..

Now, I do think at some point it becomes ridiculous. I guess some people think it has already gotten there, i.e. Cummings. But that is also a mistake. I don't know where exactly the point of diminishing returns gets passed, and they are just repeating themselves for tv time on Fox. Its close to that, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#842
#842
BigPapaVol said:
The call for evidence is idiotic. The intent of hearings and calls for documentation is to gather evidence in light of some clearly illegal actions. The ultimate end is to ascertain the genesis of the program.

Given that there the beneficiaries of these actions are democratic politicians, the culprits are already narrowed down. The hearings and data gathering are the only way to find the shatheads driving this program.

GTFO with your evidence bs. If people already had it, the appropriate firings would be moving.
Click to expand...


Exactly!

And the evidence of the genesis is that it came from a staffer whose conservative Republican boss okayed it.

If you have any evidence that it came form the WH or the Obama campaign, by all means share it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#845
#845
Hey LG, this week we find out the Chief Council of the IRS knew about the specific targeting. You know, because Issa keeps investigating it. It keeps coming out little by little but you're such a hack you won't admit it and it's absurd.
 
#846
#846
VOLinthaNATI said:
Hey LG, this week we find out the Chief Council of the IRS knew about the specific targeting. You know, because Issa keeps investigating it. It keeps coming out little by little but you're such a hack you won't admit it and it's absurd.
Click to expand...


Counsel?

At any rate, please link that. I'd be curious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#847
#847
LG,

What motivation could there possibly be other than political? Barring someone actually copping to that, is process of elimination not enough?

They singled out conservative groups. Despite their protestations, they did not subject liberal groups to the same processes. They also started this program before the "explosion" of conservative applications in the wake of Citizens United, and the "explosion" itself was not nearly as significant as some have claimed.

So, again, what motivation could there be?
 
#849
#849
VOLinthaNATI said:
Background on Chief Council;

Students & Recent Grads: Office of Chief Counsel Jobs and Careers with the IRS

Obama nominee William Wilkins leads this office.

Meet William J. Wilkins -- the President's Man at the IRS - Carol Platt Liebau

On the time line (page 36), there is the following entry for August 4, 2011:



In other words, the Chief Counsel of the IRS was informed about the issue on August 4, 2011. So who is this Chief Counsel?

America, meet Obama appointee William J. Wilkins -- briefed on the political targeting of conservative groups as of 8/4/11."

Finally;

How is it that the systematic harassment of conservative groups continued at the IRS even after President Obama's man at the IRS knew of the previous targeting as of August 4, 2011? For example, the timeline entry for January 25, 2012 reads as follows:
Click to expand...

lawgator1 said:
Counsel?

At any rate, please link that. I'd be curious.
Click to expand...

:popcorn:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top