"Mistakes Were Made"

[meazza]

The amount of detail requested is utterly ridiculous. But otherwise. the nature of the information requested is pretty standard.

 

Wouldn't this be the tax equivalent of racial profiling?

[DC Tom]

Wouldn't this be the tax equivalent of racial profiling?

 

 

My point being: don't focus too much on the content of the letters, as they're not egregiously outside the norm. The real issue that the IRS was specifically targeting political opposition.

 

By your analogy, it would be akin to being outraged that a police officer asks a black man "What's in your pockets?" and thus losing sight of the fact that black men get stopped four times more often.

[meazza]

 

My point being: don't focus too much on the content of the letters, as they're not egregiously outside the norm. The real issue that the IRS was specifically targeting political opposition.

 

By your analogy, it would be akin to being outraged that a police officer asks a black man "What's in your pockets?" and thus losing sight of the fact that black men get stopped four times more often.

 

Don't get upset. I was asking

[DC Tom]

Don't get upset. I was asking

 

Yeah, but I figured you, at least, would understand the difference without being told, you dumbass.

[meazza]

Yeah, but I figured you, at least, would understand the difference without being told, you dumbass.

 

I blame the fatigue, Carey Price and Republicans in Congress.

[3rdnlng]

Just an aberration by some low level employees?

 

http://www.nationalr...uisition-update

 

 

Along with targeting tea-party groups, the IRS may also have given extra-special attention to the tax-exempt status of some Jewish groups for political reasons.

 

From the Jewish Press:

 

The passionately pro-Israel organization Z STREET filed a lawsuit against the IRS, claiming it had been told by an IRS agent that because the organization was “connected to Israel,” its application for tax-exempt status would receive additional scrutiny. This admission was made in response to a query about the lengthy reveiw of Z STREET’s tax exempt status application.

 

In addition, the IRS agent told a Z STREET representative that the applications of some of those Israel-related organizations have been assigned to “a special unit in the D.C. office to determine whether the organization’s activities contradict the Administration’s public policies.” . . .

 

And at least one purely religious Jewish organization, one not focused on Israel, was the recipient of bizarre and highly inappropriate questions about Israel. Those questions also came from the same non-profit division of the IRS at issue for inappropriately targeting politically conservative groups. The IRS required that Jewish organization to state “whether [it] supports the existence of the land of Israel,” and also demanded the organization “[d]escribe [its] religious belief system toward the land of Israel.”

 

More bureaucratic snafus?

[B-Man]

Enough of the "low-level, Cincinnati B.S., Here's today's Washington Post....................

 

 

Report: Top IRS officials knew in 2011 that conservative groups were targeted

 

 

 

By Josh Hicks and Ed O’Keefe,

 

 

An inspector general’s report due for release this week says senior Internal Revenue Service officials knew that agents were targeting conservative groups for special scrutiny as early as 2011, nine months before the IRS commissioner assured Congress the targeting was not happening.

 

The report is certain to raise questions about the timing of the IRS’s disclosure of the targeting on Friday, how high up were the officials who knew about the practice, and whether anyone outside the agency was aware of it.

 

Details of the inspector general’s audit, obtained by The Washington Post from a congressional aide with knowledge of the findings, revealed that Lois G. Lerner, who oversees tax-exempt groups for the IRS and made the disclosure Friday, knew about the targeting of tea party and other groups in June 2011. In March 2012, IRS Commissioner Douglas H. Shulman told Congress that the agency was not targeting conservative groups that applied for tax-exempt status as “social welfare” groups

 

http://www.washingto...7add_story.html

Edited May 12, 2013 by B-Man

[OCinBuffalo]

Everybody in this thread realizes that this story was purposely "trashed"(released on a Friday afternoon), right? And, it was done in the most underhanded way possible: completely out of context, at a weekly conference call for tax lawyers. As I understand it, those weren't reporters on that call, those were guys who are looking to understand tax rules.

 

And then this comes out.

 

This Lerner lady is either incredibly smart, or incredibly stupid. She's smart if she figures she will get a pass, since she's the one who fessed up first, without being asked, and nobody will remember the details, or, she's incredibly stupid for introducing herself to the nation as a liar, since we already know what she said will be contradicted by the IG report.

 

Perhaps she knows she is screwed, and she figures inappropriately spilling the beans outside of the normal channels is her only chance?(doesn't the IRS have a spokesperson? shouldn't this come from the leader of the IRS? No. Something this bad, should have come from Obama himself.),

[B-Man]

 

IRS Scrutiny Was Deeper Than Thought. “Government investigators have found that the Internal Revenue Service scrutinized conservative groups for raising political concerns over government spending, debt and taxes or even for advocating making America a better place to live, according to new details likely to inflame a widening IRS controversy. The latest details about the IRS handling of applications for tax-exempt status by tea party, patriot and other conservative groups in recent years were provided to congressional investigators by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. The findings were reviewed Sunday by The Wall Street Journal.”

 

 

It just wasn't the "Key Words" excuse.....................if you offered any criticism of the government or even support for the constitution, you were likelier to be targeted.

 

 

Also: Washington Post: IRS targeted groups that criticized the government, IG report says. “The new revelations are likely to intensify criticism of the IRS, which has been under fire since agency officials acknowledged they had deliberately targeted groups with ‘tea party’ or ‘patriot’ in their name for heightened scrutiny.”

 

 

.

Edited May 12, 2013 by B-Man

[IDBillzFan]

It just wasn't the "Key Words" excuse.....................if you offered any criticism of the government or even support for the constitution, you were likelier to be targeted.

 

 

I remember leading up to the election there was a big donor guy from Vegas for Romney who suddenly was under a massive audit, and he opted to fight it and go public with it. Can't remember the guy's name, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him surface again in coming weeks. I think some people feel that, since this IRS thing was dumped in mid-Benghazi stream, it would fall away, but based on the rage coming from many liberal pundits, this may not go away as quickly as some would like.

[DC Tom]

Enough of the "low-level, Cincinnati B.S., Here's today's Washington Post....................

 

 

 

 

http://www.washingto...7add_story.html

 

Oh, give me a break. We all know this wasn't a premeditated, preplanned targeting by the IRS of conservative groups. It was just some spontaneous investigation sparked by a very hateful video on the internet...

[3rdnlng]

In all seriousness I can't imagine this kind of brownshirt activity purposely being perpetrated by Obama. I think it's more likely coming from the type of appointees he has put in place. You would think that he would have had to know that you can't have an IRS acting in any political way. This had to have come from his appointees or the people they hired, or just the Chicago type environment that has seemed to permiate this administration. It's like the government hierarchy should be renamed:

 

Secretary (like Secretary of Defense)=Boss

Under Secretary=Under Boss

Director=Capo

All other federal workers=henchmen

The rest of the public=not part of "our thing"

 

So, I don't think Obama ordered the IRS to do what it did, I think it was just a natural extension of policies and tone that he set. 1984 arrived, just a little later.

 

 

[DC Tom]

In all seriousness I can't imagine this kind of brownshirt activity purposely being perpetrated by Obama. I think it's more likely coming from the type of appointees he has put in place. You would think that he would have had to know that you can't have an IRS acting in any political way. This had to have come from his appointees or the people they hired, or just the Chicago type environment that has seemed to permiate this administration. It's like the government hierarchy should be renamed:

 

Secretary (like Secretary of Defense)=Boss

Under Secretary=Under Boss

Director=Capo

All other federal workers=henchmen

The rest of the public=not part of "our thing"

 

So, I don't think Obama ordered the IRS to do what it did, I think it was just a natural extension of policies and tone that he set. 1984 arrived, just a little later.

 

I agree, if for different reasons. It's actually pretty damn hard for the President to get down to that level of detail in his job that he could tell the IRS "target the Tea Party."

 

And truthfully, the Commissioner of the IRS, probably gets more pressure from Congress than the Executive Office. At the very least, he's certainly more frightened of them.

[3rdnlng]

 

 

I agree, if for different reasons. It's actually pretty damn hard for the President to get down to that level of detail in his job that he could tell the IRS "target the Tea Party."

 

And truthfully, the Commissioner of the IRS, probably gets more pressure from Congress than the Executive Office. At the very least, he's certainly more frightened of them.

 

I'm pretty sure those words never came out of Obama's mouth. In fact he may never have even hinted at it. His appointees though, and the people they hired, in my opinion allowed/made this schit happen. So, I'd blame Obama for setting the tone.

[B-Man]

"We had a lot of buffers, Senator"

 

[OCinBuffalo]

I'm pretty sure those words never came out of Obama's mouth. In fact he may never have even hinted at it. His appointees though, and the people they hired, in my opinion allowed/made this schit happen. So, I'd blame Obama for setting the tone.

I've heard that they asked for donor information, and that there is evidence that the donor information was passed on to Democratic campaigns. That may seem like no big deal, but, it's actually a huge deal. If you know where the money is, and where it's going, how much and from whom, you can extrapolate/deduce the entire Republican electoral $ game plan, and if you do that, then a pro can know everything.

 

But, I heard a pundit say that on TV. I've yet to see it in writing, and I haven't heard anybody confirm it yet. Thus the grain of salt is the size of a house at this point.

 

As far as who could do it? This is vile speculation, but, I wouldn't put this past Valerie Jarrett. It fits her profile thus far.

[B-Man]

CONSTANTLY SHIFTING CRITERIA

 

By July 2011, the IRS was no longer targeting just groups with certain key words in their names. Rather, the screening criteria had changed to "organizations involved with political, lobbying, or advocacy."

 

But then it changed again in January 2012 to cover "political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding government, educating on the constitution and bill of rights, social economic reform/movement," according to the findings contained in a Treasury Department watchdog report.

 

In March 2012, after Tea Party groups complained about delays in processing of their applications, then-IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman was called to testify by a congressional committee. He denied that the IRS was targeting tax-exempt groups based on their politics.

 

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/13/us-usa-tax-irs-criteria-idUSBRE94C03N20130513

 

 

 

.

[Magox]

David Plouffe, One of Obama's main henchmen; justified IRS targeting of Conservatives?

[OCinBuffalo]

http://dailycaller.c...y-also-leaking/

 

Well, here's the first "leaking" story I've seen in print. It's one thing to ask for the wrong information, have a process snafu, etc. It's entirely another thing if the reason you are asking for this info, is so that you can turn it over to political campaigns, opponents, etc.

 

I see smoke, not fire. But, you have to wonder if that Crossroads thing is evidence of leaking. How did they get the info, if it is still pending?

Edited May 13, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[Magox]

From the National Journal:

 

 

Obama's Outrage Focused on Republicans More Than IRS

 

 

 

 

President Obama is outraged. And that outrage was on ample display Monday morning when he was pressed on the two hot political controversies of the day -- reports that the Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative groups for special attention and continuing questions about the killings of four Americans last year in Benghazi. The famously cool and stoical president seemed much more agitated about the Benghazi investigations than about the IRS actions.

Fielding questions at a joint session with British Prime Minister David Cameron, the president could not have been surprised that the one question permitted to an American reporter was a multi-query barrage on the IRS, Benghazi and Syria. He also knew going in that Friday’s news about the IRS had led to demands from both sides of the political aisle that he show some anger at the tax agency and offer an apology.

He wasn’t about to offer that apology, especially since the investigation is incomplete and none of his appointees may have been involved. But the words he spoke did suggest his displeasure with what was done. Twice, he called it “outrageous.” He stressed, “I’ve got no patience with it. I will not tolerate it. And we’ll make sure that we find out exactly what happened on this.” But the president’s delivery did not always match the strength of the words. NBC’s Chuck Todd described the presentation as “clinical,” perhaps not surprising since the president cast the story as “pretty straightforward.”

But there was nothing either clinical or straightforward about the president’s response to the ongoing Republican investigations of what happened in Benghazi last Sept. 11 or, more importantly, what happened inside the White House and the State Department in the days immediately following that attack when officials were battling with the Central Intelligence Agency over what to say. Here, without doubt, was an angry president, clearly outraged at what he sees as Republican partisan perfidy.