8
   

Tea Party & patriot groups

 
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 02:18 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
78% of those held up were NOT conservative orgs, so your assertion is abit unsecured.


You may be correct in what you share, do you have any evidence? I heard that the only group that has been denied that status was only one and they were a liberal or progressive group.
woiyo
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 07:39 am
@parados,
The what exactly did Lois Lerner apologize for??? What did the former head of the IRS apologize for???
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 07:51 am
@reasoning logic,
It was on a discussion on Voice of the Nation (PBS)
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 07:53 am
@woiyo,
The issue was using their obvious names to identify the IG report said there didn't seem to be anything political in their methods, but more like taking a short cut. Moreover, they seemed to have not listened to those who told them not to do it. Also, it seems those at the top engaged in cover up to congress when they would have been better off to just admit to their problems. At least that is all the evidence has pointed out so far.

The following is a graph from the report which shows what percentage was tea partiers and the like.

Quote:
“According to the Director, Rulings and Agreements,” the IG’s report explains, “the fact that the team of specialists worked applications that did not involve the Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 groups demonstrated that the IRS was not politically biased in its identification of applications for processing by the team of specialists.”

While, even if true, that doesn’t excuse the inappropriate and unfair use of those terms to identify which applications to flag, the IG’s report bears out the general assertion. As you can see in the following chart [from page 8 of the IG's report, page 14 in the PDF], of the 298 cases flagged as “potential political cases” by the IRS during the period reviewed by the Inspector General from early 2010 through May 2012, just 96 of them (less than one-third) were flagged due to the inappropriate name criteria…


http://www.bradblog.com/Images/TreasureDeptIG_IRSReport_051412_Figure4PoliticalBreakdown.jpg


source

woiyo
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 08:50 am
@revelette,
So again, what did Lois Lerner apologize for? Why did the former Head of the IRS apologize for? The IG is not independent and, while he seems like a nice man, I do not trust his conclusion that there was "no politics" involved in targeting these groups. Actually, that sounds rather silly since we all know that mostly all of the 501 c applicants are in fact political.

So to say we picked out any group with tea party in their name and it was not for their "politics" sounds dumb.

Of course it was political.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 09:41 am
@woiyo,
Quote:
So again, what did Lois Lerner apologize for? Why did the former Head of the IRS apologize for? The IG is not independent and, while he seems like a nice man, I do not trust his conclusion that there was "no politics" involved in targeting these groups. Actually, that sounds rather silly since we all know that mostly all of the 501 c applicants are in fact political.

So to say we picked out any group with tea party in their name and it was not for their "politics" sounds dumb.



Do you just ignore what don't fit your gripe or what? Since less than one third of those singled out for extra scrutiny were tea party, patriots or 9/11 groups, it shows that political motives must not have been a factor. The whole dust up has started because of the IG report so it makes little sense to dismiss what the IG says, or just the parts you disagree with.

0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 09:58 am
@woiyo,
The IRS apologized for basing the political involvement justification only on the name. It was profiling.

Because the profiling resulted in the same result that should have occurred without profiling doesn't justify the profiling. What you are arguing is that the groups should get off simply because they were profiled and we should ignore their political nature even though law requires greater scrutiny.
woiyo
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 10:58 am
@parados,
The profiling of certain groups and not others is wrong. Those profiled were asked more indepth and irrelevant and illegal questions than those who were not profiled. All applicants should be treated equally. If a Tea Party Group that was asked to submit the names of all the members, then Organizing for America should have been asked the same question (They were not I suspect).

Why are you trying to defend the indefensible?
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 11:04 am
@woiyo,
Quote:
Those profiled were asked more indepth and irrelevant and illegal questions than those who were not profiled.

That is complete BULL **** from you.

Profiling put them in a category that they made up less than 30% of the total.
So in other words MORE groups were asked in depth questions then there were profiled groups. ALL groups in that category were asked questions that you seem to think were illegal. How were they illegal questions? When a group claims it is a social group and the IRS thinks they are a political group the ONLY way the IRS can find out for sure is to ask questions about their political activity. That makes the question relevant and legal. Your misrepresentation is nothing but partisan spin.

Quote:
If a Tea Party Group that was asked to submit the names of all the members, then Organizing for America should have been asked the same question (They were not I suspect).
Why bother with facts when you can just "suspect". It makes you look like a moron when you "suspect" liberal groups weren't subjected to the same questions but the IG report who are the people who actually investigated show your "suspect" to be without merit.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 03:27 pm
www.propublica.org/article/six-facts-lost-in-irs-scandal
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jun, 2013 06:32 am
Apparently more is known about the Cincinnati IRS group than has been disclosed by Issa. I can not figure out how to copy and paste from the government website but the following link is a letter from Cummings to Issa detailing evidence obtained from interviews from witnesses who appeared before their committee.

link to letter

(The person answering the five hour interview is a "conservative republican" with 21 years IRS experience. He is the manager of the screening group of the IRS in Cincinnati.)

parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jun, 2013 07:18 am
@revelette,
What? A conservative Congressman keep things from the American public? How could that happen?
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jun, 2013 07:22 am
Quote:
On Tuesday, House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) backtracked from his commitment to release transcripts of interviews with Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agents that allegedly prove how political officials in the Obama administration directed the IRS to target conservative groups applying for 501 (c)(4) status. Now, the Committee’s top Democrat is daring Issa to allow him to publicize transcripts that appear to undermine those claims.

In a letter sent to the Chairman on Thursday, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) asked Issa to review interviews with IRS officials he intends to release and “identify any specific text you believe should be witheld from the American people.”

The interview Cummings seeks to release allegedly shows a Screening Group Manager in Cincinnati admitting that the first instance of targeting conservative groups occurred after a screener “highlighted the first Tea Party case in February 2010.” The manager, a Republican, identified the case as “high profile” and sent it to technical officials in Washington for guidance. He also assured investigators that he “took this action on his own, without any direction from his superiors, and without any political motivation.” Cummings’ letter also notes that another IRS screener confessed to developing the inappropriate targeting terms like “Patriot” and “9/12″ and began using them in his searches.

“You chose to make very serious and unsubstantiated allegations before the Committee had conducted even a single interview of any IRS employees, you chose to unilaterally release select excerpts from these interviews to try to support your claims,” Cummings says in his letter. “Based on the totality of your actions to date, it seems very difficult for you to argue now that releasing the full transcripts to the public will somehow compromise the integrity of the Committee’s investigation.”

Issa has called White House Press Secretary Jay Carney a “paid liar” and suggested that someone in the White House was aware of the inappropriate screening. He initially promised to release all of the Committee’s documents, but later claimed that publicizing the full results of the Oversight Committee’s investigation would “needlessly jeopardize the integrity of the investigation and hamper the Committee’s ability to get to the truth.”

Several Republicans have also criticized Issa’s tactics, calling on him to release the full transcripts from the Committee’s investigations. “Let’s see everything. Let’s see it all,” Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) told a local station. ” And let’s see all the transcripts and you know let’s have a fair, objective analysis of this.”

Issa will have until Monday to respond to Cummings’ request.


links at the source
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jun, 2013 08:14 am
Full transcript of congressional interview with IRS manager released
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 06:31 am
Mitch McConnell Realizes IRS Scandal Is Over


Quote:
Mitch McConnell delivered a speech today at the American Enterprise Institute to officially signal that the IRS scandal has entered its post-fact phase. When the IRS first revealed that its Cincinnati office had attempted to enforce its nonprofit laws using a search function that disproportionately impacted conservatives, Republicans were certain it must have come from the White House. They were going to follow the facts. But all of the facts point in the same direction, which is that the Obama administration had nothing to do with it at all. That was the conclusion of the agency’s inspector-general report, as well as the House Oversight Committee’s own interviews, which the Republican majority tried to suppress and which (when the Democrats released them) showed the operation was an independent, well-intentioned effort to enforce the law led by an IRS official who happens to be a conservative Republican.


McConnell’s speech is an attempt to reframe the issue in a way that it can survive the utter absence of incriminating facts. One method he employs is to flip around the burden of proof:



Now we have an administration that’s desperately trying to prove that nobody at the top was involved in any of this stuff, even as they hope that the media loses interest in this scandal and moves on …


Got that? Before Republicans were going to prove that Obama’s administration was involved. All of the evidence suggests it wasn’t. So now McConnell is framing the question as Obama trying to prove he wasn’t involved. Which, of course, he can’t. For that matter, McConnell can’t prove that he didn’t mastermind the IRS. You can’t prove a negative.


McConnell also argues that the scandal is larger than facts about illegality or misconduct — “what we’re dealing with here is larger than the actions of one agency or any group of employees.” By "larger," McConnell means the scandal is just the same nebulous suspicions they have always had about Democrats running the government:



The attacks on speech that we’ve seen over the past several years were never limited to a few Left-wing pressure groups or the DISCLOSE Act. They extend throughout the federal government, to places like the FEC, the FCC, HHS, the SEC, and as all Americans now know — even to the IRS. These assaults have often been aided and abetted by the administration’s allies in Congress.


The “Disclose Act” is a proposed measure that would require unregulated political groups to publicly disclose their donors. Back when campaign finance reformers were trying to actually put limits on outside donations, McConnell was a fierce advocate of this idea. Since the Supreme Court killed spending limits, disclosure has become the best reformers can hope for, and McConnell has now turned against it and indeed portrays it as a sinister Nixonian attempt to suppress free speech.


The belligerent and borderline-paranoid tone of McConnell’s speech today is a kind of covered retreat, signaling the IRS scandal’s turn into a vague trope that conservatives use with other members of the tribe, the way liberals liked to say “Halliburton” during the Bush years, to signal some dark beliefs they don’t need to back up.
Moment-in-Time
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 10:57 am
@revelette,
Quote:
Mitch McConnell Realizes IRS Scandal Is Over


I could not agree more, Revelette. The depraved Mitch McConnell is the personification of the squirming, frightened, right-wing redneck who is beginning to realize time is running out! This warped-minded Republican said at the dawn of Obama's first term that his FIRST PRIORITY was to make sure Obama served only one term....refusing to understand and acknowledge if the president failed so will the American people. Mitch McConnell is DECAYING from the head down.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jun, 2013 07:18 am
@Moment-in-Time,
Well, decaying or not, chances are he will get re-elected in Kentucky by wide margins like always. Kentucky is mostly like the rest of the southern states; though I will not voting for him no matter who is running against him. I'm just hoping he will start to become less relevant in the senate.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jun, 2013 06:18 am
IRS Targeted Progressive Groups, Too, Documents Reveal

Quote:
John Shafer, manager of the tax-exempt division in the IRS Cincinnati office had told congressional investigators that BOLOs were applied not for purposes of punishing conservative groups, but to ensure that similar organizations were being categorized and screened by the same group of IRS officials. The concern, he said, was that two different tea party groups would get two different decisions on non-profit status. So, the Cincinnati office developed filters to make sure that everything was categorized as cleanly as possible, he said.

Democratic staffers on the House Ways and Means Committee released a copy of a BOLO list Monday that showed the word "progressive" was one of those a filters.

Common thread is the word 'progressive,'" the document reads. "Activities appear to lean toward a new political party. Activities are partisan and appear as anti-Republican. You see references to "blue" as being 'progressive.'"

The document released by House Democrats shows that the IRS was grappling with a wave of difficult-to-define organizations looking for tax-exempt status. The BOLO document notes that 176 applicants for 501c4 status had used the same address in their applications.

Under a section titled "Watch List," the agency put "health care legislation" as an "issue name," advising that new applicants were subject to secondary screening. The IRS also listed "medical marijuana" as an issue name to watch, as well as "occupied territory advocacy."


(more at the source)
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jun, 2013 08:01 am
@revelette,
Now the question is raised as to why the IG report didn't talk about targeted progressive groups. It seems the report may have been political in nature. I wonder if the GOP Congress had anything to do with it.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jun, 2013 08:46 am
@parados,
I don't know, maybe just because IG wasn't asked about progressive groups? I remember seeing a graph which showed other groups who were targeted but no details of who they were or the methods used to target them.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

IRS - Beware - Discussion by PUNKEY
IRS Abuse Question - Discussion by Finn dAbuzz
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/01/2022 at 11:58:59