Inspector General: IRS 'scandal' nothing to do with Administration, everything to do with IRS/Treasury

[Jack Springer]

A little history JH . . .

The IRS targeted conservative groups.

The Administration knew over 6 months before the 2012 election .. and decided to keep it a secret.

The Administration came up with a 'cute' way of disclosing the targeting.

Called before Congress by dem's and repub's -- no one in the Administration knows anything.

Dem's and repub's in Congress are both upset about the IRS targeting a specific group.

Media finds out that all 'the President's men' knew about the targeting .. but kept their 'big boss' in the dark.

Lois Lerner who 'leaked' the story with a planted question from a friendly reporter takes 'the 5th' while saying that the same time she is innocent and did nothing wrong.

IRS head makes 118 visits to the White House ... only one visit he can remember is the Easter Roll.

Ms. Lerner loses her 5th Amendment rights because she spoke of her innocence and did not truly invoke 'the 5th'




I don't live in the vacuum of CE+P or media. Sorry if that offends you ... well, not really.

 

[Rolyo85]

Flailing like a fish out of the bowl ^_^

 

[Kulindahr]

Lawrence O'Donnell is finally bringing up (in long form, no less) the fact that the IRS deliberately disobeyed WRITTEN STATUTE by "misinterpreting" EXCLUSIVELY to mean primarily. Yes, this shit started in 1959. The point was brought up that a 501 (c)(4) doesn't even need to APPLY for their status, they can just start right away evading taxes. (And if they don't even need to APPLY, doesn't that mean they can be 100% political, and they're OK with the IRS?)

Yes, EVADING, not avoiding. This is TAX FRAUD.

I wonder if there's even a chance that Congress will act and require the IRS to follow the law, and disallow these "social welfare" organizations to be tax-exempt if they engage in even a small amount of partisan politics?

No, it's not going to happen. THE REPUBLICANS **LOVE** IT THIS WAY. And so do the Democrats.

Here's a link, for that:

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/05/16/odonnell-reminds-politicians-of-the-real-irs-scandal/

Cute antidotal response that doesn't mean anything.

"Antidotal" would mean "having the nature of an antidote".

Ms. Lerner loses her 5th Amendment rights because she spoke of her innocence and did not truly invoke 'the 5th'

There's no magic formula for "invoking" the Fifth, like it was some sort of arcane spirit to be summoned up by specific ritual.

Just wondering, since you show little to no evidence of it -- have you ever actually read the constitution? Just ion case, here's the relevant text:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


The statement is a warning to government of what they're not supposed to do. It doesn't require any action on the part of the person being questioned. In fact, if the person being questioned actually has to mention that protection, it's good evidence that the questioner is already out of bounds.

 

[Jack Springer]

^^^

Appears you've read the democrat party's brochure "If You Can't Discuss the Subject, Resort to Personal Attacks".



Lerner tried to have it both ways. She lost her right to the 5th Amendment when she spoke and defended herself.



A sad but humorous point about your defense of Lerner and her right to the 5th Amendment. Lerner was doing her best to block groups that were promoting the "Bill of Rights" and the "US Constitution" and yet you want to defend her rights while she was making sure other people could not enjoy their rights under the Constitution.

Maybe you need to understand the Constitution and not just read it.

 

[JayHawk]

A little history JH . . .

The IRS targeted conservative groups.

The Administration knew over 6 months before the 2012 election .. and decided to keep it a secret.

The Administration came up with a 'cute' way of disclosing the targeting.

Called before Congress by dem's and repub's -- no one in the Administration knows anything.

Dem's and repub's in Congress are both upset about the IRS targeting a specific group.

Media finds out that all 'the President's men' knew about the targeting .. but kept their 'big boss' in the dark.

Lois Lerner who 'leaked' the story with a planted question from a friendly reporter takes 'the 5th' while saying that the same time she is innocent and did nothing wrong.

IRS head makes 118 visits to the White House ... only one visit he can remember is the Easter Roll.

Ms. Lerner loses her 5th Amendment rights because she spoke of her innocence and did not truly invoke 'the 5th'




I don't live in the vacuum of CE+P or media. Sorry if that offends you ... well, not really.

I actually get my media from a few different places and JUB isnt one of them. Why pray tell do you resort to insinuations and attacks? I see you are proud to offend and attack?? Isnt that a violation of CEP guidelines?

Provide your proof that the Administration KNEW about the targeting. Everything I have seen is the cincinnati office used terms to define the primary applications for tax cheats. The senior office removed political words TWICE and instructed that those not be used.

So unless you have some proof the administration KNEW six months before then you need to provide it via a reliable non-head-up-your-ass source. Otherwise you sir are making shit up which is otherwise termed as being a liar.

 

[Jack Springer]

I actually get my media from a few different places and JUB isnt one of them. Why pray tell do you resort to insinuations and attacks? I see you are proud to offend and attack?? Isnt that a violation of CEP guidelines?

Provide your proof that the Administration KNEW about the targeting. Everything I have seen is the cincinnati office used terms to define the primary applications for tax cheats. The senior office removed political words TWICE and instructed that those not be used.

So unless you have some proof the administration KNEW six months before then you need to provide it via a reliable non-head-up-your-ass source. Otherwise you sir are making shit up which is otherwise termed as being a liar.

The inspector general gave Republicans some fodder Friday when he divulged that he informed the Treasury’s general counsel he was auditing the I.R.S.’s screening of politically active groups seeking tax exemptions on June 4, 2012. He told Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin “shortly after,” he said. That meant Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

The disclosure last summer came as part of a routine briefing of the investigations that the inspector general would be conducting in the coming year, and he did not tell the officials of his conclusions that the targeting had been improper, he said.

Treasury officials stressed they did not know the results until March 2013, when the inspector presented a draft.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/us/politics/irs-scandal-congressional-hearings.html?hp&_r=3&

June, July, August, September, October, November --- six months

If this would have happened when a republican was elected President ... there would be riots in the streets.

Waiting for your public apology.

 

[Kulindahr]

Appears you've read the democrat party's brochure "If You Can't Discuss the Subject, Resort to Personal Attacks".

Ah, the regular practitioner of personal attacks whines about it when he perceives one where none exists.

Jack, grow up -- you show less maturity here than many of the middle school kids I last worked with at church.

Lerner tried to have it both ways. She lost her right to the 5th Amendment when she spoke and defended herself.

Sorry, but that's not in the Constitution. She can speak as she wants, or keep silent as she wants, but she can do that at her pleasure, not yours.

A sad but humorous point about your defense of Lerner and her right to the 5th Amendment. Lerner was doing her best to block groups that were promoting the "Bill of Rights" and the "US Constitution" and yet you want to defend her rights while she was making sure other people could not enjoy their rights under the Constitution.

First, I heard on the radio a commentator saying she had actually tried to make sure there was no discrimination. Secondly, she was quite right to invoke it because she knows she's bloody well guilty of not denying EVERY application for 501(c)(4) that in any way smelled of a political agenda, and she wasn't doing that. SHe and the rest of the IRS have been in violation of the law ever since it was written, by allowing any political activity or expression at all from such groups, by allowing any groups with any political motives to have that status at all.

There were no constitutional rights of others involved, just attempts by political organizations to defraud the taxpayer by engaging with the IRS in conspiracy to disobey the law.

The real humor here is that you don't even see the actual issue.

Maybe you need to understand the Constitution and not just read it.

I just refuse to interpret it as a tool for authoritarians, as you do -- I read it as written, and when it says she can't be compelled to offer testimony against herself, that's what it means, period.

 

[Kulindahr]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/us/politics/irs-scandal-congressional-hearings.html?hp&_r=3&

June, July, August, September, October, November --- six months

If this would have happened when a republican was elected President ... there would be riots in the streets.

Waiting for your public apology.

That apology would be yours -- your cite does not establish what it claims. It shows that the inspector general was reporting about doing part of his job, but that he did NOT report that anything improper was going on.

Your thinking here and almost constantly in CE & P is an excellent illustration of why the Libertarian Party was formed: you expect government and its officials to have divine attributes, knowing all and seeing all. That constitutes worship of the state, which is a bit of idolatry in which the religious right engages regularly while screaming about people wanting the government to do everything.

The only real difference between Democrats and Republicans is the way in which they treat government as a god.

 

[JayHawk]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/us/politics/irs-scandal-congressional-hearings.html?hp&_r=3&

June, July, August, September, October, November --- six months

If this would have happened when a republican was elected President ... there would be riots in the streets.

Waiting for your public apology.

SO Jack a IG does an investigation and determines that nothing wrong has been indicated yet... do you run that up the flag pole to see if the Boss wants to know something may or may not be amiss? Cherry picking. That info went no where especially when the head of the IRS indicates the practice had been stopped and a further investigation was occurring to determine if the law had been violated.

Your boss must be tired of your face if you constantly bring him or her non issues to review ...just because.

 

[Jack Springer]

IG investigations don't just happen every day. They are important investigations and the IG investigation did not state that their was nothing wrong.

Top management wants to know what's going on within their company -- I'm sure you advise your superiors want to know what's going on in your area in a regular report.

Why would anyone assume this is not done within the federal government.

The practice of targeting conservative groups had not been stopped.

I can't understand why you don't have an open mind on this.

 

[JayHawk]

You never answered my question... how many conservative groups versus liberal groups were applied for at the same timeframe... IF liberal groups were given a pass in the same numbers then sure... if not then the IRS was simply doing its job.

How about this..(for the second time) ... how many liberal versus conservative groups have been denied tax exempt status?

IG investigations don't just happen every day. They are important investigations and the IG investigation did not state that their was nothing wrong.


Top management wants to know what's going on within their company -- I'm sure you advise your superiors want to know what's going on in your area in a regular report.


Why would anyone assume this is not done within the federal government.


The practice of targeting conservative groups had not been stopped.


I can't understand why you don't have an open mind on this.

You know fuck all about my mind so please secure your insults.

The link you provided stated that the IG had NO INDICATION of WRONGDOING.... is that hard to read or just not what you desire to hear?

 

[CowboyBob]

Oh Shit, is he going on about that "open mind" thing again when his is slammed shut?

 

[Kulindahr]

You never answered my question... how many conservative groups versus liberal groups were applied for at the same timeframe... IF liberal groups were given a pass in the same numbers then sure... if not then the IRS was simply doing its job.

How about this..(for the second time) ... how many liberal versus conservative groups have been denied tax exempt status?

Actually the question should go deeper: how many groups at all applied which had any indications of political intent? The question of their "orientation" comes next, and the thing to be examined there is important: were there more liberal groups or more right-wing groups trying to do an end-run around the system by pretending to be social benefit groups while actually aiming for political advocacy?

 

[Kulindahr]

Why do so many want to avoid the actual issue here: that the IRS has been operating contrary to the law since 1959???

That should have people all along the political spectrum up in arms. Instead, the argument seems to be in favor of overreaching government power, with the only disagreement over how it gets used.

 

[JayHawk]

Why do so many want to avoid the actual issue here: that the IRS has been operating contrary to the law since 1959???

That should have people all along the political spectrum up in arms. Instead, the argument seems to be in favor of overreaching government power, with the only disagreement over how it gets used.

This is a key point. Again a situation where republicans used the system as is and then found it unsuitable for a democratic president.

I think the questions should go further to identify who of these groups that were approved are actually political hack squad with no social improvement program at all. Then make them pay back taxes.

 

[Kulindahr]

A bit of information for perspective:

Dirty Deeds at the IRS: More Common than You Think

The recent IRS scandal—the agency’s stonewalling and harassment of Tea Party groups that sought tax-exempt status during the run-up to the 2012 elections—has evoked righteous indignation across the political spectrum. But one emotion it shouldn’t elicit is surprise. The Infernal Revenue Service, as many detractors call it, has long been used as a political weapon. President Nixon turned the IRS against those on his “enemies list,” and under President Kennedy the agency investigated right-wing groups via its Ideological Organizations Project. Even select congressional staffers have benefited from the agency: in 1979, Chicago’s top taxman prevented an audit of an assistant to then-Representative Frank Annunzio, as Independent Institute Senior Fellow William F. Shughart II explains in an op-ed for Investor’s Business Daily.

Such incidents of political misbehavior are not outliers. In 2001, Shughart and two colleagues, Michael Reksulak and Marilyn Young, revealed a disturbing pattern of political activism by the IRS in a peer-reviewed journal article based on data culled from tax returns from all 33 of the agency’s geographic districts from 1992 through 1997. Two patterns were particularly pervasive. Finding #1: The agency was less likely to audit a return, Shughart writes, “if the taxpayer lived in a district that was politically important to the sitting president or was represented by a member of Congress serving on a committee with IRS oversight responsibility.”

Finding #2: “Audit rates were substantially lower in so-called battleground states with large numbers of electoral votes where presidential elections have historically been close,” Shughart continues, “such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.” These patterns suggest that the IRS is happy to deploy the “carrot” of foregoing an audit when doing so serves its political bosses and friends, whether they work on Capitol Hill or at the White House. “No one other than the most naïve observer of American politics should be shocked to find that the IRS, like all bureaucracies, is susceptible to political manipulation,” Shughart concludes. “It’s happened before and will probably happen again.”

IRS Scandal Is Nothing New—It’s Always Been a Political Weapon, by William F. Shughart II (Investor’s Business Daily, 5/23/13)

Taxing Choice: The Predatory Politics of Fiscal Discrimination, edited by William F. Shughart II

Taxation, Forced Labor, and Theft, by Edward Feser (The Independent Review, Fall 2000)

(from the Independent Institute's email newsletter)
Source Link: http://www.independent.org/publications/the_lighthouse/detail.asp?id=499#2488

[note: I couldn't find either the Investor’s Business Daily op-ed or the 2001, Shughart-Reksulak-Young peer-reviewed piece]


Sounds like government of the people, by the bureaucracy, for the politicians.

 

[opinterph]

I couldn't find either the Investor’s Business Daily op-ed or the 2001, Shughart-Reksulak-Young peer-reviewed piece

IRS Scandal Is Nothing New — It's Always Been A Political Weapon (Investors.com; May 23, 2013)

The Political Economy of the IRS (Blackwell Publishers Ltd; 2001)​

 

[Jack Springer]

^^^

Good comparison.

NIXON = OBAMA

.... and we all know what happened to Nixon.

Will the media be just as harsh with Obama? Answer: no

Why?