I've already gone over the reasons why I don't believe this was a two man operation as the IRS is claiming. The argument for it being just a few grunts is also dealt another blow IMO by the fact that Lois Lerner(head of the IRS tax-exempt-organizations division) became aware of the targeting, at the very latest, in 2011, and the IRS commisioner and his deputy learned about it in May of 2012. But none saw fit to go public with that knowledge, even though there were during this time well-documented complaints of excess scrutiny that were emanating from tea-party groups. Miller also appears to have lied about the targeting operation in response to congressional inquiries.
IRS admits to singling out Tea Party Groups
- Thread starter downtown
- Start date
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
And we have already gone over why IRS scandal has been exaggerated out of all proportions.
Two persons have been forced to resign already. Five more persons are likely to be fired as well. All this while no one under the Bush administration was ever held accountable for the IRS targeting Liberal groups. Plus the huge scandal occurred under a Republican Bush appointee.
David Rivkin and Lee Casey: The IRS and the Drive to Stop Free Speech
The unfolding IRS scandal is a symptom, not the disease.For decades, campaign-finance reform zealots have sought to limit core political speech through spending limits and disclosure requirements. More recently, they have claimed that it is wrong and dangerous for tax-exempt entities to engage in political speech.
The Obama administration shares these views, especially when conservative, small-government organizations are involved, and the IRS clearly got the message. While the agency must be investigated and reformed, the ultimate cure for these abuses is to unshackle political speech by all groups, including tax-exempt ones, from arbitrary and unconstitutional government regulation.
Beginning in March 2010, the IRS engaged in an unprecedented campaign of harassment against conservative groups, either through denials or delays in approving their tax-exempt-status applications, or through endless and burdensome audits.
In notable contrast, liberal and "progressive" organizations got approvals with remarkable speed. The most conspicuous example involves the Barack H. Obama Foundation, which was approved as tax exempt within a month by the then-head of the IRS tax-exempt branch, Lois Lerner. From media reports and firsthand accounts, we also know that the IRS disproportionately audited donors to conservative causes and leaked confidential tax information concerning conservative groups in violation of federal law.
The courts have long held that the IRS cannot use subjective, "value-laden" tests in administering nonprofit status. As the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit stated in one leading case, Big Mama Rag, Inc. v. United States (1980): "although First Amendment activities need not be subsidized by the state, the discriminatory denial of tax exemptions can impermissibly infringe free speech."
The proper lessons of the unfolding IRS scandal are twofold. First, any effort to have the IRS police advocacy activities of social-welfare organizations is bound to be clumsy and prone to degenerate into either selective or broad witch hunts. Second, the remedy is not to further limit political speech by nonprofit entitieswhich would certainly raise significant constitutional issuesbut to encourage such speech by imposing fewer restrictions.
The unfolding IRS scandal is a symptom, not the disease.For decades, campaign-finance reform zealots have sought to limit core political speech through spending limits and disclosure requirements. More recently, they have claimed that it is wrong and dangerous for tax-exempt entities to engage in political speech.
The Obama administration shares these views, especially when conservative, small-government organizations are involved, and the IRS clearly got the message. While the agency must be investigated and reformed, the ultimate cure for these abuses is to unshackle political speech by all groups, including tax-exempt ones, from arbitrary and unconstitutional government regulation.
Beginning in March 2010, the IRS engaged in an unprecedented campaign of harassment against conservative groups, either through denials or delays in approving their tax-exempt-status applications, or through endless and burdensome audits.
In notable contrast, liberal and "progressive" organizations got approvals with remarkable speed. The most conspicuous example involves the Barack H. Obama Foundation, which was approved as tax exempt within a month by the then-head of the IRS tax-exempt branch, Lois Lerner. From media reports and firsthand accounts, we also know that the IRS disproportionately audited donors to conservative causes and leaked confidential tax information concerning conservative groups in violation of federal law.
The courts have long held that the IRS cannot use subjective, "value-laden" tests in administering nonprofit status. As the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit stated in one leading case, Big Mama Rag, Inc. v. United States (1980): "although First Amendment activities need not be subsidized by the state, the discriminatory denial of tax exemptions can impermissibly infringe free speech."
The proper lessons of the unfolding IRS scandal are twofold. First, any effort to have the IRS police advocacy activities of social-welfare organizations is bound to be clumsy and prone to degenerate into either selective or broad witch hunts. Second, the remedy is not to further limit political speech by nonprofit entitieswhich would certainly raise significant constitutional issuesbut to encourage such speech by imposing fewer restrictions.
The drive to stop free speech was easily predicted back in November, 2009.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703932904574511541363270618.html
This IRS thing just drives home how the Chicago Way of politics has finally made its way to D.C. It started back in 2010 right?
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...icago-mayors-father-and-uncle-the-chicago-way
I believe the woman in charge of overseeing this whole scandal got promoted to run ObamaCare compliance at the IRS.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703932904574511541363270618.html
This IRS thing just drives home how the Chicago Way of politics has finally made its way to D.C. It started back in 2010 right?
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...icago-mayors-father-and-uncle-the-chicago-way
I believe the woman in charge of overseeing this whole scandal got promoted to run ObamaCare compliance at the IRS.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
There is good reason why churches cannot engage in political activity in this country, as they can in other countries. But I'm not terribly surprised that a Rupert Murdoch-owned publication cannot seem to understand this, much less those who have no problem with corporations buying the American political system. Nor do they seem to be very interested in how a secular government is fundamentally different from a theocracy.
It is quite simple. If they wish to engage in partisan politics, all they have to do is give up their tax exemption. I encourage them to do so.
It is quite simple. If they wish to engage in partisan politics, all they have to do is give up their tax exemption. I encourage them to do so.
How are groups that have all received tax exemptions ruined?
Top IRS official will invoke 5th Amendment
If nothing untoward happened here as Forma and other forum goers claim, why plead the 5th?
If nothing untoward happened here as Forma and other forum goers claim, why plead the 5th?
If we're to believe some of the people here no crime occurred at all, so what is to be gained from refusing to answer the legitimate questions of Congress? For there to be a claim of protection of self incrimination there has to be something incriminating that happened. If no crime occurred as has been argued, what's the basis to claim the protection?
In order to be able to invoke the Fifth, the truthful answer must tend to incriminate you in someway in a crime. Any other invocation of the Fifth is simply a transparent attempt to avoid a lawful order to testify before a Congressional Committee providing oversight.
Maybe the guy is trying to get a Fox News gig like Olver North.
IRS Commissioner Contradicts Earlier Testimony, Says Tea Party-Targeting Was Partisan
:hmmm:
Would anyone in this thread that has argued the opposite care to comment on this?
:hmmm:
Would anyone in this thread that has argued the opposite care to comment on this?
Those particular key words are partisan - no one is claiming that they are not - yet I do not believe it was the entire universe of filtering keywords. But the question you must ask - how can a group that is claiming the IRS use of keywords is partisan still maintain that their groups are non-partisan enough to qualify for the exemption?
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
What the ???
Republicans and congress was informed of IRS wrong doing back in 2012.
But at the very same time says that the White house covered up the IRS scandal for political gain. ........... what the ??????
Republicans and congress was informed of IRS wrong doing back in 2012.
But at the very same time says that the White house covered up the IRS scandal for political gain. ........... what the ??????
Farm Boy
run boy run
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 26,676
They can be partisan organizations and still claim the status that allows them to hide their precious donors. They just can't have influencing elections as their "primary purpose." Even churches are allowed to write open letters to the government and operate politically within restrictions. You and I know well enough that while we can debate over what we would consider common sense or reasonableness that neither of those things particularly matters much once you sit down with the law books and ask "what's the issue?"
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
The very first rule you learn in Conspiracy Theory 101 is to ignore the facts which completely ruin the conspiracy.
