IRS Has Lost More E-mails . . .

The normal way to handle this kind of clear obstruction of justice is to convene a grand jury and start with the lower level employees and get them to start rolling over on the higher ups. A dirtbag like Eric Holder is never going to agree to a special prosecutor however, so it is going to be up to the congress, or possibly the next repunlican administration, to sort this out.

A first step is for the House to put some pressure on by refusing to pass funding for targeted groups, eg IRS. Departmen of Labor, EPA. These are out of control, highly politicized agencies whose affairs need a throrough house cleaning. Cutting their funding drastically is a good first step.

Of course, that will require courage from the republican leadership, so don't hold your breath. They're still plotting how to sneak amnesty past us. A bitter confrontation with obama is the last thing they want.
 
Isn't anyone concerned about corruption of the political process by unlimited amounts of dark money being spent in political campaigns? And why isn't there any concern here about the wholesale masquerading of political fund raising organizations as social welfare agencies so then can hide the identity of their donors.

In Citizens United the Supreme Court assumed that sufficient safeguards were in place to assure that the sources of large PAC contributions would be identified. The Court did not anticipate how easy it would be for donors to hide their identities via subterfuge. Had they considered that, I wonder if they might have ruled differently.
 
piezoe said:
Isn't anyone concerned about corruption of the political process by unlimited amounts of dark money being spent in political campaigns? And why isn't there any concern here about the wholesale masquerading of political fund raising organizations as social welfare agencies so then can hide the identity of their donors.

In Citizens United the Supreme Court assumed that sufficient safeguards were in place to assure that the sources of large PAC contributions would be identified. The Court did not anticipate how easy it would be for donors to hide their identities via subterfuge. Had they considered that, I wonder if they might have ruled differently.
More...

I'm sorry, but I thought this thread was about the IRS hiding it's corrupt behavior of going after political opponents of the administration.
 
piezoe said:
Isn't anyone concerned about corruption of the political process by unlimited amounts of dark money being spent in political campaigns? And why isn't there any concern here about the wholesale masquerading of political fund raising organizations as social welfare agencies so then can hide the identity of their donors.

In Citizens United the Supreme Court assumed that sufficient safeguards were in place to assure that the sources of large PAC contributions would be identified. The Court did not anticipate how easy it would be for donors to hide their identities via subterfuge. Had they considered that, I wonder if they might have ruled differently.
More...

The two are not remotely comparable.

In the case of money in politics, we are talking about a core First Amendment value, free speech. The Supreme court has accepted some limitations, but it is becoming apparent that they are increasingly unwilling to accept the blanket rationale that money equals corruption. Everyone knows that the main reason for campaign finance legislation is not the prevention of corruption or to advance democracy but rather to protect incumbents. That is hardly a core First Amendment value.

With the IRS scandal we have at least two direct threats to our Constitutional scheme. One is the unlawful use of the IRS to attack political opponents. This itself is a tiny step from some Hugo Chavez-like demagogue sending mobs or one of the innumerable Federal SWAT teams out to rough up the opposition.

Two is the coverup. We have one branch of govenrment openly defying a co-equal branch to coverup a blatant misuse of the IRS. It seems apparent that felony obstruction of justice has already occurred and is not only tolerated by the administratioin, but is openly encouraged and defended.
 
AAAintheBeltway said:
The two are not remotely comparable.

In the case of money in politics, we are talking about a core First Amendment value, free speech. The Supreme court has accepted some limitations, but it is becoming apparent that they are increasingly unwilling to accept the blanket rationale that money equals corruption.
More...

Yes, that equation is slightly flawed. Money equals power. And as everyone knows, power purifies.
 
Tsing Tao said:
I'm sorry, but I thought this thread was about the IRS hiding it's corrupt behavior of going after political opponents of the administration.
More...
Yes, of course. However, the issues are inextricably intertwined, though the clever politician wants to separate them for political gain.

IRS prevarication has been met with equal prevarication on the part of the committee. If you consider the anti-IRS frenzy over hostile public servants, in a hostile atmosphere I might add, the mishandling of email, and the less than judicious handling of 503c organizations by the IRS you get one picture. But consideration in light of populist politics, paints a quite different picture; one in which the IRS is being "targeted" for political purposes by populist politicians just before an election. The critical question of whether or not the IRS should be cracking down on political organizations of all stripes masquerading as "social welfare" organizations isn't being addressed, but rather being swept under the rug, or at least there is an all too obvious attempt to do so.

A genuine fact finding exercise would have to address the entire issue rather than merely the most politically productive subset. The facts of the matter suggest that there are hundreds of organizations knowingly and intentionally violating the statutes and the tax code, and the IRS has been letting them get away with it! The real genesis of the present "investigation" lies in party politics, the unpopularity of the IRS, and one of the most popular and productive political themes, i.e., IRS bashing! The purported reason for the House IRS Hearings is the IRS targeting of "conservative" PACs. For the real reasons, look elsewhere.
 
This might possibly be true if the IRS had targeted groups without regards to their politics. They didn't. They admitted they singled out one group, who just happened to be a dire threat to the administration on the verge of important elections.

The fact that you keep trying to equate this with some potential minor violations of IRS regulations undermines your credibility. Surely you can see the difference?
 
AAAintheBeltway said:
This might possibly be true if the IRS had targeted groups without regards to their politics. They didn't. They admitted they singled out one group, who just happened to be a dire threat to the administration on the verge of important elections.

The fact that you keep trying to equate this with some potential minor violations of IRS regulations undermines your credibility. Surely you can see the difference?
More...

Apparently, he cannot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top