So where are all the IRS-Obama Scandle People now that the Truth is coming out?

Quote from Max E. Pad:

Name one progressive group that got stalled for anywhere near the length of time that the conservative groups did.

Oh yeah, problem solved alright, only if your a die hard, naive liberal, the IRS investigated THEMSELVES and miraculously came to the conclusion they did nothing wrong, nothing to see here, move along lol.
More...

Is THIS the "truth" the OP is cheering over?
 
Quote from pspr:

Not so fast liberal loon.
---

By: John Hayward Follow @@Doc_0 6/25/2013 09:11 AM

Yesterday afternoon brought a wave of stories about the new head of the IRS, Danny Werfel – who used to work in Barack Obama’s budget office – announcing that IRS harassment of non-profit groups was “broader and lasted longer than has been previously disclosed,” as the Associated Press put it. This was seized upon by a grateful Left-media complex as “proof” that the persecution of conservative groups was an overrated scandal, because supposedly “progressive” groups had been targeted, too:

The IRS has been under fire since last month after admitting it targeted tea party and other conservative groups that wanted the tax-exempt designation for tough examinations. While investigators have said that agency screening for those groups had stopped in May 2012, Monday’s revelations made it clear that screening for other kinds of organizations continued until earlier this month, when the agency’s new chief, Danny Werfel, says he discovered it and ordered it halted.

The IRS document said an investigation into why specific terms were included was still underway. It blamed the continued use of inappropriate criteria by screeners on “a lapse in judgment” by the agency’s former top officials. The document did not name the officials, but many top leaders have been replaced.

Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee released 15 lists of terms that the IRS agency used and has provided to congressional investigators. Some of the lists, which evolved over time, used the terms “Progressive” and “Tea Party” and others including “Medical Marijuana,” ”Occupied Territory Advocacy,” ”Healthcare legislation,” ”Newspaper Entities” and “Paying National Debt.”

The lists were dated between August 2010 and April 2013 — the month before the IRS targeting of conservative groups was revealed. They ranged from 11 pages to 17 pages but were heavily blacked out to protect sensitive taxpayer information.

The Administration’s defenders keep trying to reset public memory of this scandal. To refresh everyone’s memory of actual reality, this was not about the discovery of a few memos that happened to mention “Tea Party,” “Patriot,” etc. as search terms. It’s about actual abuse of those organizations, which came forward by the hundreds to file detailed complaints about it. Where are the “progressive” groups with documented complaints about IRS agents demanding every social media post they ever wrote, instructing them not to exercise free speech in certain ways, or delaying their applications for tax-exempt status for month after month? As far as I know, the count currently stands at zero… and I suspect that if they thought they could get away with it, a few of them would have tried falsifying such claims at the height of media coverage, to drain some of the pressure away.

Would progressive groups that really did suffer Tea Party-style abuse be reluctant to complain about it, because they didn’t want to damage President Obama? It’s hard to see why they would hold any such reservations. No hard evidence linking Obama to the IRS scandal has been uncovered. Polls showed the public reluctant to make such a connection, although opinion eventually seems to have turned a bit, largely because Obama has been working so hard to remain invisible throughout the crisis – he’s acting in a way that makes him look somewhat guilty, or at least embarrassed, to the casual observer.

Remember, the broad consensus among scandal-watchers – including many who are sympathetic to Obama – is that IRS officials, along with those at other agencies, went after Obama’s political opponents on their own initiative, after listening to the President demonize them for years. A few well-documented cases of abused liberal groups would have gone a long way toward disputing that analysis, adding fuel to the “rogue employees” theory. This whole scandal began because the IRS admitted it was applying standards unfairly to conservative groups, which had been complaining about it for quite some time, leading to an Inspector General report that top officials wanted to get in front of.

What remains is figuring out who gave the orders to begin this systemic abuse, which we’ve already learned went far beyond the lower levels of the Cincinnati office. Lost in all the “progressives were targeted, too!” trumpeting yesterday was Werfel’s statement about a “lapse in judgment by the agency’s former top officials.” That’s 100 percent different from the “low-level employees” lie the IRS was pushing feverishly during the first few weeks of the scandal, isn’t it?

Writing at Conservative Intelligence Briefing, David Freddoso points out that liberals using these new BOLO (Be On the Lookout) lists to wave the scandal away are ignoring the difference between the types of tax-exempt organization:

The 14 new IRS documents do mention the term “progressive,” but only in describing applications for the coveted 501 c(3) status, which confers tax deductibility on donations. The documents where the term “progressive” appears (or wasn’t redacted) instruct agents that c(3) status is not appropriate for groups that conduct overtly political activity. Unlike 501 c(4) groups — nearly all of those involved in the Tea Party targeting scandal — 501 c(3) groups are not permitted to engage in political advocacy at all.

Freddoso also notes that these supposedly exculpatory documents actually provide specific instructions to treat the conservative groups differently, a point also made by Eliana Johnson at National Review:

A November 2010 version of the list obtained by National Review Online, however, suggests that while the list did contain the word “progressive,” screeners were instructed to treat progressive groups differently from tea-party groups. Whereas they were merely alerted that a designation of 501(c)(3) status “may not be appropriate” for progressive groups — 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from conducting any political activity — they were told to send applications from tea-party groups off to IRS higher-ups for further scrutiny.

That means the applications of progressive organizations could be approved by line agents on the spot, while those of tea-party groups could not. Furthermore, the November 2010 list noted that tea-party cases were “currently being coordinated with EOT” — Exempt Organizations Technical, a group of tax lawyers in Washington, D.C. Those of progressive organizations were not.

Johnson also reminds us that IRS agents have testified that conservative groups were aggressively targeted on an ideological basis, while top official Holly Paz admitted that the agency was aggressively hunting down “Tea Party groups,” but laughably claimed that everyone at the IRS thought of “Tea Party” as a generic term for all tax-exempt groups that might engage in political activity. None of this testimony is erased by the discovery of a few documents with the word “progressive” mixed into the watch lists. And it’s tough to understand why a high-level official, Lois Lerner, would be asked to resign, placed on paid administrative leave when she refused, and take the Fifth Amendment to evade congressional testimony about a “non-scandal.”

Update: In the course of assembling documentation for its class-action suit against the IRS, the American Center for Law and Justice just revealed that twelve different IRS units were targeting conservative groups between 2010 and 2012. This destroys the efforts of the Democrat saboteur on House Oversight, Rep. Elijah Cummings, to portray the scandal as the work of a single unit.

Has there been a report of anything so massive and widespread directed at liberal groups? How about anything half as massive?

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/06/25/did-the-irs-target-progressive-groups-too/
More...

My suggestion would be to go to a more objective source for your information.
 
Quote from Max E. Pad:

Name one progressive group that got stalled for anywhere near the length of time that the conservative groups did.

Oh yeah, problem solved alright, only if your a die hard, naive liberal, the IRS investigated THEMSELVES and miraculously came to the conclusion they did nothing wrong, nothing to see here, move along lol.
More...

I have no interest in that, however all the information seek is now available to you if you want it.
 
This is not directly related to the recent news out concerning the IRS examinations of 501c(4) applications, but this is nevertheless an interesting tidbit that was on the Propublica.org site.

"
5. Most of the money spent on elections by social welfare nonprofits supports Republicans.

Of the more than $256 million spent by social welfare nonprofits on ads in the 2012 elections, at least 80 percent came from conservative groups, according to FEC figures tallied by the Center for Responsive Politics.

None came from the Tea Party groups with applications flagged by the IRS. Instead, a few big conservative groups were largely responsible.

Crossroads GPS, which this week said it believes it is among the conservative groups "targeted" by the IRS, spent more than $70 million in federal races in 2012. Americans for Prosperity, the social welfare nonprofit launched by the conservative billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, spent more than $36 million. American Future Fund spent more than $25 million. Americans for Tax Reform spent almost $16 million. American Action Network spent almost $12 million.

Besides Crossroads GPS, each of those groups has applied to the IRS and been recognized as tax-exempt. (You can look at their applications here.)

All of those groups spent more than the largest liberal social welfare nonprofit, the League of Conservation Voters, which spent about $11 million on 2012 federal races. The next biggest group, Patriot Majority USA, spent more than $7 million. Planned Parenthood spent $6.5 million. VoteVets.org spent more than $3 million.

None of those figures include the tens of millions of dollars spent by groups on certain ads that run months before an election that are not reported to the FEC.

6. Some social welfare groups promised in their applications, under penalty of perjury, that they wouldn’t get involved in elections. Then they did just that.

Much of the attention when it comes to Tea Party nonprofits has focused on their applications and how the IRS determines whether a group qualifies for social welfare status.

As part of our reporting on dark money in 2012, ProPublica looked at more than 100 applications for IRS recognition. One thing we noted again and again: Groups sometimes tell the IRS that they are not going to spend money on elections, receive IRS recognition, and then turn around and spend money on elections

The application to be recognized as a social welfare nonprofit, known as a 1024 Form, explicitly asks a group whether it has spent or plans to spend “any money attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election, or appointment of any person to any Federal, state, or local public office or to an office in a political organization.”

The American Future Fund, a conservative nonprofit that would go on to spend millions of dollars on campaign ads, checked “No”in answer to that question in 2008. The very same day the group submitted its application, it uploaded this ad to its YouTube account:

Even before mailing its application to the IRS saying it would not spend money on elections in 2010, the Alliance for America’s Future was running TV ads supporting Republican candidates for governor in Nevada and Florida. It also had given $133,000 to two political committees directed by Mary Cheney, the daughter of the former vice president.

Another example of this is the Government Integrity Fund, a conservative nonprofit that ran ads in last year’s U.S. Senate race in Ohio. Its application was approved after it told the IRS that it would not spend money on politics. The group went on to do just that.
"
I don't want to do your work for you, but as a suggestion for those few interested in "truth" you might go to the NPR news site for June 26th. That's where, for example, I found this:

"Democrats Want Answers On 'Progressives' Targeted By IRS(96)
Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., listens as ousted IRS Chief Steve Miller and J. Russell George, Treasury inspector general for tax administration, testify during a House Ways and Means Committee hearing on May 17.

June 25, 2013 Democrats say Tea Party groups weren't the only ones being targeted by the IRS. And they have released documents that show "progressives" was on the lists of terms that IRS employees used to decide which groups got extra scrutiny. That wasn't mentioned in the IRS inspector general's report.

On All Things ConsideredPlaylist " There is a link there that I think allows you to replay their broadcast.
 
This is not directly related to the recent news out concerning the IRS examinations of 501c(4) applications, but this is nevertheless an interesting tidbit that was on the Propublica.org site.

"
5. Most of the money spent on elections by social welfare nonprofits supports Republicans.

Of the more than $256 million spent by social welfare nonprofits on ads in the 2012 elections, at least 80 percent came from conservative groups, according to FEC figures tallied by the Center for Responsive Politics.

None came from the Tea Party groups with applications flagged by the IRS. Instead, a few big conservative groups were largely responsible.

Crossroads GPS, which this week said it believes it is among the conservative groups "targeted" by the IRS, spent more than $70 million in federal races in 2012. Americans for Prosperity, the social welfare nonprofit launched by the conservative billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, spent more than $36 million. American Future Fund spent more than $25 million. Americans for Tax Reform spent almost $16 million. American Action Network spent almost $12 million.

Besides Crossroads GPS, each of those groups has applied to the IRS and been recognized as tax-exempt. (You can look at their applications here.)

All of those groups spent more than the largest liberal social welfare nonprofit, the League of Conservation Voters, which spent about $11 million on 2012 federal races. The next biggest group, Patriot Majority USA, spent more than $7 million. Planned Parenthood spent $6.5 million. VoteVets.org spent more than $3 million.

None of those figures include the tens of millions of dollars spent by groups on certain ads that run months before an election that are not reported to the FEC.

6. Some social welfare groups promised in their applications, under penalty of perjury, that they wouldn’t get involved in elections. Then they did just that.

Much of the attention when it comes to Tea Party nonprofits has focused on their applications and how the IRS determines whether a group qualifies for social welfare status.

As part of our reporting on dark money in 2012, ProPublica looked at more than 100 applications for IRS recognition. One thing we noted again and again: Groups sometimes tell the IRS that they are not going to spend money on elections, receive IRS recognition, and then turn around and spend money on elections

The application to be recognized as a social welfare nonprofit, known as a 1024 Form, explicitly asks a group whether it has spent or plans to spend “any money attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election, or appointment of any person to any Federal, state, or local public office or to an office in a political organization.”

The American Future Fund, a conservative nonprofit that would go on to spend millions of dollars on campaign ads, checked “No”in answer to that question in 2008. The very same day the group submitted its application, it uploaded this ad to its YouTube account:

Even before mailing its application to the IRS saying it would not spend money on elections in 2010, the Alliance for America’s Future was running TV ads supporting Republican candidates for governor in Nevada and Florida. It also had given $133,000 to two political committees directed by Mary Cheney, the daughter of the former vice president.

Another example of this is the Government Integrity Fund, a conservative nonprofit that ran ads in last year’s U.S. Senate race in Ohio. Its application was approved after it told the IRS that it would not spend money on politics. The group went on to do just that.
"
I don't want to do your work for you, but as a suggestion for those few interested in "truth" you might go to the NPR news site for June 26th. That's where, for example, I found this:

"Democrats Want Answers On 'Progressives' Targeted By IRS(96)
Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., listens as ousted IRS Chief Steve Miller and J. Russell George, Treasury inspector general for tax administration, testify during a House Ways and Means Committee hearing on May 17.

June 25, 2013 Democrats say Tea Party groups weren't the only ones being targeted by the IRS. And they have released documents that show "progressives" was on the lists of terms that IRS employees used to decide which groups got extra scrutiny. That wasn't mentioned in the IRS inspector general's report.

On All Things ConsideredPlaylist " There is a link there that I think allows you to replay their broadcast.

This might work:
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=195599362&m=195628170
 
Quote from Lucrum:

Is Propublica.org an objective source?

These aren't rhetorical questions I'm asking BTW.
More...
Lucrum, it seems to be. You'll have to go to their website and judge for yourself. I have noticed for example in the case of the recent investigation of the IRS they have an investigation of IRS problems in the Cincinnati Office in addition to their investigation of groups applying for 501c(4) status. It looks like it's as objective as you will find, but I suppose human nature precludes perfect objectivity in anything involving judgement --certainly anything involving opinion. Propublica consists of a group of journalists that say they are interested in investigative reporting. They seem to believe that investigative reporting is a dying art that is still needed. They appear to scrupulously avoid opinion.

We have all assumed that the Inspector General was looking at the way the IRS was going about screening groups applying for 501c(4) status in general, and our opinions were based on that presumption. It now turns out that the I.G. wasn't doing that at all. They were just looking at IRS investigations of Tea Party type applications for 501c(4) status, and not any others. This in my opinion was idiotic, and changes everything. The I.G. said, well Issa only asked me to look at treatment of Tea Party groups, so that's what we did. Fine, but it misled everyone who was assuming, quite naturally, that Tea Party Groups were being singled out by the IRS. In actual fact the IRS had a list of red flags that they looked for in applications, and those flags included stuff that would have triggered a more thorough consideration of applications from both left and right wing groups. It turned out that the IRS also scrutinized suspect left wing, i.e. "progressive," groups as well, but there were fewer of them applying. We were all misled because Issa and the I.G. just focused on Tea Party type political groups claiming to be social welfare organizations. This whole business has just been ridiculous. But it did turn up some serious problems in IRS procedures. So some good will perhaps come out of it.
 
And yet you still cant name a single company on the left that actually had to wait as long as any of the tea party ones did to get approval, i mean surely with the IRS being unbiased on this one, you would have a line up of progressive groups trying to bail out obama and the supposedly clean IRS on thjis one.

Give your head a shake.

Oh, and LOL at propublica supposedly being an un biased news source, youre a funny guy piezoe.

Quote from piezoe:

Lucrum, it seems to be. You'll have to go to their website and judge for yourself. I have noticed for example in the case of the recent investigation of the IRS they have an investigation of IRS problems in the Cincinnati Office in addition to their investigation of groups applying for 501c(4) status. It looks like it's as objective as you will find, but I suppose human nature precludes perfect objectivity in anything involving judgement --certainly anything involving opinion. Propublica consists of a group of journalists that say they are interested in investigative reporting. They seem to believe that investigative reporting is a dying art that is still needed. They appear to scrupulously avoid opinion.

We have all assumed that the Inspector General was looking at the way the IRS was going about screening groups applying for 501c(4) status in general, and our opinions were based on that presumption. It now turns out that the I.G. wasn't doing that at all. They were just looking at IRS investigations of Tea Party type applications for 501c(4) status, and not any others. This in my opinion was idiotic, and changes everything. The I.G. said, well Issa only asked me to look at treatment of Tea Party groups, so that's what we did. Fine, but it misled everyone who was assuming, quite naturally, that Tea Party Groups were being singled out by the IRS. In actual fact the IRS had a list of red flags that they looked for in applications, and those flags included stuff that would have triggered a more thorough consideration of applications from both left and right wing groups. It turned out that the IRS also scrutinized suspect left wing, i.e. "progressive," groups as well, but there were fewer of them applying. We were all misled because Issa and the I.G. just focused on Tea Party type political groups claiming to be social welfare organizations. This whole business has just been ridiculous. But it did turn up some serious problems in IRS procedures. So some good will perhaps come out of it.
More...
 
Quote from Max E. Pad:

And yet you still cant name a single company on the left that actually had to wait as long as any of the tea party ones did to get approval, i mean surely with the IRS being unbiased on this one, you would have a line up of progressive groups trying to bail out obama and the supposedly clean IRS on thjis one.

Give your head a shake.

Oh, and LOL at propublica supposedly being an un biased news source, youre a funny guy piezoe.
More...
That's what I was afraid of.
 
Piezoe, you are a loon. America has a fifteen second attention span, and you know it. The msm isn't reporting on it anymore, nothing has come of it, and nothing will happen. If this administration were republican, they'd be in handcuffs as we speak, and you know that too. Today's democrat is nothing more than a legalized outlaw, nothing more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top