Quote from Max E. Pad:
Do you realize that the people within the IRS who did the audits have already admitted to ISSA that they were told by their superiors to target conservative groups, and also that a couple of them have said the orders came from washington?
Apparently some of these people even knew what they were doing was wrong, and they requested to be transferred out of the division.
Issa has the transcripts and will be releasing all of them he said once the investigation is over.
Basically with that information out there, you are simply burying your head in the sand when you say you don't know if they targeted conservative groups.
Pad, it seems you are reading into my remarks something that is not there. No one denies that conservative groups were targeted -- BUT we don't have much information on other groups that were apparently also targeted. But most importantly for the IRS to admit that they targeted organizations "because they are conservative political organizations," does not tell us what we really want to know. It appears now that there were some progressive organizations that were also targeted "because they were progressive political organizations." I hope you see my point. The common thread is "political organization" not a specific political leaning. You can get the answer you want depending on how you ask the question. It's equivalent to me asking you on the witness stand, "when did you stop beating your wife?" The question presupposes the answer. Then of course I interrupt and do not let you elaborate.
The wild jumping to unfounded conclusions needs to stop. In the hearing there was some very limited testimony about "progressive" groups that were targeted as well. But these folks are less vocal. As we learn more, it is very clear that the IRS screwed up! But what's new there.
There was testimony that "it seemed like" orders were coming from Washington. But what does that mean?
Bottom line is that none, zero, of these political organizations --conservative and progressive, or whatever their political stance-- are qualified under the rules for 501c(4). None of them deserve to be subsidized by we tax payers by being given a tax break. They are all 527 organizations.
The only reason any of them are applying for 501c(4) is so the can hide the source of their funding, which makes it much easier to raise money. None of them have to apply for 501c(4). They just won't get we taxpayers to subsidize them if they don't get approved. My position is that those who signed the applications falsely presenting their organizations as being "primarily" Social Welfare organizations should all see jail time -- liberal, progressive, conservative, tea nut, whatever -- all of them! And preferably all in the same cell.
Maybe once the documents that resulted from the real investigation are made public we can began to make sense of this bizarre episode.
By the way I did get to watch a bit of the hearing today, and I want to commend Rep. Nunes as exemplifying what the committee should be trying to do -- get correct information! Nearly all the others that I watched were simply grandstanding, both parties, and formulating their questions to get the answers they wanted (like any good prosecuting, of defense attorney). But Nunes actually asked questions aimed at getting facts. That's what our representatives should do. They are NOT Prosecuting or Defending -- at least not supposed to be.