Quote from piezoe:
My main point was this, and it seems it slipped through the cracks. Re the recent applications that have not yet been approved, we don't know anything except what the applicants themselves have decided to release, and obviously they are not going to release a bunch of ridiculous statements that they may, or may not have , made to the IRS about their relative mix of Social Welfare and political activity. If there are other groups that applied at the same time, they may just be standing by silent. The applications are not considered to be in the public domain until approved. That's IRS policy, and that's what may have got one or two IRS employees in a bit of hot water. Propublica has already said that the IRS released copies of a few (they said how many, but i can't remember) applications they should not have.
We are dependent on the applicants themselves for information. And in this case the applicants are plaintiffs. So naturally you are going to be fed, quite intentionally, a picture rather favorable to the plaintiff. That's my point here, pspr. It would be prudent not to jump to conclusions before both sides weigh in. We have very little from the IRS at this point. They are being named as a defendant in a lawsuit, so don't expect much. The hearing has been a joke so far, and has simply served as a platform for political grandstanding against the reviled IRS.
I like to hear from both sides in a conflict before making up my mind. And one of those sides is not the media, it's the IRS. And the IRS is saying as little as they can get away with..