IRS Scandal Bombshell

[AAAintheBeltway]

No doubt this policy came from the top. The IRS career drones obviously didn't have a problem with persecuting anti-government groups, but they would have been too timid to do it on their own.

Obama/Holder are never going to prosecute Lois Lerner or the IRS Counsel, at least as long as they keep their mouths shut. It is distasteful for a new administration to prosecute political crimes from their predecessors. Even Obama didn't do that, although he was under some pressure to prosecute Bush's people for the interrogation policy.

So I am afraid it is up to the House to force this issue. They can do two things. They can cut the IRS' budget severely, so severely that there would have to be massive layoffs. That would punish a lot of inncent people but also send a message that there is a price for treachery.

The other, more reasonable alternative would be for the house and Senate republicans to agree that nothing would be done until a special counsel was appointed. Patrick Fitzgerald maybe. No amnesty, no debt ceiling, no nothing.

Of course, for the sellouts like McCain, Graham, Rubio, Paul Ryan, Cantor and Boehner getting amnesty through is far more important than holding the IRS accountable. In truth, they are not all that upset at these Tea Party groups being jerked around.

 

[pspr]

We do know that answer, pie. While target words included progressive, etc. it was only the conservative Tea Party applications that were held up for special review and additional inappropriate questionnaires. That has been born out in the questioning before Congress.

You blanket answer about all 501(c) applications falls flat.

 

[pspr]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

So I am afraid it is up to the House to force this issue. They can do two things. They can cut the IRS' budget severely, so severely that there would have to be massive layoffs. That would punish a lot of inncent people but also send a message that there is a price for treachery.

The other, more reasonable alternative would be for the house and Senate republicans to agree that nothing would be done until a special counsel was appointed. Patrick Fitzgerald maybe. No amnesty, no debt ceiling, no nothing.

I think option 1 is the only one available to Congress.

I believe the authority for Congress to appoint special counsel/prosecutors in any matter has expired. The Senate would surely not allow the law permitting Congress to appoint special prosecutors to become law again now.

At the present time, only the DOJ can appoint a special prosecutor and we know how that would go even if Holder did appoint one.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from pspr:

We do know that answer, pie. While target words included progressive, etc. it was only the conservative Tea Party applications that were held up for special review and additional inappropriate questionnaires. That has been born out in the questioning before Congress.

You blanket answer about all 501(c) applications falls flat.

So did the IRS approve the applications from progressive groups, there were only a few, during the same election cycle, or not? I haven't seen anything on this, but I haven't been watching. Did none of those few progressive groups get asked additional questions? I don't care what people think happened, I want to know what actually happened. I want to know what happened to the applications from progressive groups! I've heard ad infinitum ad nauseum about tea party group applications, but I can't find out anything regarding what happened to applications from progressive groups. I know there were only a tiny number, but still what happened to those? Does anyone here know?

 

[pspr]

Quote from piezoe:

So did the IRS approve the applications from progressive groups, there were only a few, during the same election cycle, or not? I haven't seen anything on this, but I haven't been watching.

I don't know where I've seen the quotes but from what I've read many conservative groups have been waiting for over two years without a decision while there aren't any liberal groups that I've read about that didn't get a decision within a year.

I'm not 100% on that but that seems to be what I recall reading.

 

[piezoe]

Thanks. That's helpful. I just found this too,
http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/700643-201310053fr-revised-redacted-1

Really what I want to know is:

1) whether the IRS fucked up the review of these applications. That seems to have been answered. They did, or it seems highly likely they did.
and,

2) Was there a political bias? That's the question that I haven't got answered. To me, that is a far more serious charge then they just fucked up the review. So I want to know if statistically they treated the applications from what seemed likely to be from progressive political organizations any different from what seemed likely to be from politically conservative organizations.

This is the important question in my mind, and getting to the truth has been made more difficult because apparently Issa asked the inspector general to investigate the treatment of applications from conservative groups without ever mentioning progressive groups, and our moron inspector general did just what he was told to do, and nothing else, at least at first. Secondly the investigation has obviously been hampered by the very low number of applications from progressive groups compared to those from conservative groups, making valid comparisons quite difficult.

I've already expressed my opinion that in the future the IRS should stop completely this business of pre-certifying these groups and only act on the returns they submit, because these returns will show where they actually spent their money, as opposed to where they said they would spend it. Probably very close to 100% of these groups don't qualify under IRS rules. They would probably all qualify as 527 organizations. Why do we want to encourage dark money in politics? I don't care what someone's political persuasion is. It means nothing to me. I just think it is bad for the country to have all this dark money floating around in politics. And while I'm ranting and raving, damn the Supreme Court too, for Citizens United.

Oh, and while I'm ranting, you have got to have noticed all those TV ads calling for doing away with the IRS. With ZERO mention of what to replace it with, or how to change the tax structure.

You know as well as I do that the odds of just doing away with the IRS are exactly ZERO. That would never pass Congress and NEVER be signed into law without first working out a replacement tax system.

What can any thinking person conclude from this political circus we have been subjected to? Obviously, these IRS attack ads are purely 100% politics with no value whatsoever in the way of real tax reform, reform that we all want except for that small fraction of the population that has a vested interest in the status quo. The politicians pushing this are the same populist politicians pushing the IRS investigation. Their agenda is transparent as glass. They know that if there is one thing the populace is united on, it is their hatred of the IRS (misplaced hatred naturally, since the IRS is wholly a creature of Congress and these very same politicians.) This whole business makes me want to vomit!

 

[pspr]

Quote from piezoe:

Thanks. That's helpful. I just found this too,
http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/700643-201310053fr-revised-redacted-1

Really what I want to know is:

1) whether the IRS fucked up the review of these applications. That seems to have been answered. They did, or it seems highly likely they did.
and,

2) Was there a political bias? That's the question that I haven't got answered. To me, that is a far more serious charge then they just fucked up the review. So I want to know if statistically they treated the applications from what seemed likely to be from progressive political organizations any different from what seemed likely to be from politically conservative organizations.

That's just what I told you. You've got to quit reading that prpublica.com propaganda. Here's the crux of the matter.

Over the two years between April 2010 and April 2012, the IRS essentially placed on hold the processing of applications for 501(c)(4) tax-exemption status received from organizations with "Tea Party," "patriots," or "9/12" in their names. While apparently none of these organizations' applications were denied during this period, only 4 were approved. During the same general period, the agency approved applications from several dozen presumably liberal-leaning organizations whose names included terms such as "progressive," "progress," "liberal," or "equality." (However, the IRS also targeted several progressive- or Democratic-leaning organizations for increased scrutiny, leading to at least one such organization, called Emerge America, being denied tax-exempt status. Instructions to screeners obtained by The National Review obtained instructions to IRS screeners, and NR's reading of the instructions was that conservative and liberal groups were treated differently. The instructions stated that applications of tea-party groups should be sent "to group 7822" for additional scrutiny, but the National Review's interpretation was that screeners could approve liberal groups on the spot.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_IRS_scandal

Equal treatment under the law didn't happen. Targeting of conservative groups for extra scrutiny and extreme delay and harrasment happened.

 

[piezoe]

By the way, if it is shown that anyone even remotely close to the White House interfered with the IRS review of these 501c(4) applications for political reasons, then I'll be the first to admit that I was wrong to suppose that this whole business is politically motivated grandstanding and opportunism, taking advantage of discovered IRS screw-ups and mis-treatment of some organizations applying for 501c(4) status.

And I'll certainly want to see prosecuted anyone who attempted to use the IRS to harass political opposition for their own political advantage prosecuted.

 

[pspr]

Quote from piezoe:

By the way, if it is shown that anyone even remotely close to the White House interfered with the IRS review of these 501c(4) applications for political reasons, then I'll be the first to admit that I was wrong to suppose that this whole business is politically motivated grandstanding and opportunism, taking advantage of discovered IRS screw-ups and mis-treatment of some organizations applying for 501c(4) status.

And I'll certainly want to see prosecuted anyone who attempted to use the IRS to harass political opposition for their own political advantage prosecuted.

The chief counsel for the IRS appointed by Obama doesn't count?

 

[denner]

Quote from pspr:

The chief counsel for the IRS appointed by Obama doesn't count?

Piezoe is a "gentler, kinder" and more articulate version of AK-47. He sticks to the narrative, irregardless of the facts presented to him.

For whatever reason, there are still those who try to engage him in these various topics and act surprised when he repeats the same talking points over and over again regardless of how absurd they become as the facts are presented.