• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

IRS official Lois Lerner to take the Fifth

why can't he answer directly, you have to know that if he could he surely would

At last Thursday's press conference, Obama chose his words about the IRS scandal very carefully. "I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report before the IG report had been leaked through the press." Even though he was asked about the overall malfeasance, he specifically said he didn't know about the report. That parsing alone raises questions about the level of candor coming from the White House.

Is The White House Obscuring the Truth? - NationalJournal.com

stay tuned
 
politico's take on the president's inability to answer straight

Though the White House counsel’s office was informed of the IRS probe in late April, Obama has insisted that he only learned about the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups through media reports last Friday. But he wouldn’t say definitively that the White House was unaware of the targeting before then.

Obama pushes back on IRS, AP, Benghazi - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com

what's he hiding?

why do you want to absolve him before the facts are in?

stay tuned, the questions will not go away until they are answered
 
Last edited:
Next up, the conservative targets.

Issa reached an agreement on Wednesday with Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, to bring groups targeted by the IRS to testify about their experience. That process could start as early as June, according to sources who asked to remain anonymous.

Meanwhile, Issa and Rep. Charles Boustany, the chairman of the Ways and Means oversight subcommittee, said panel staffers have begun privately interviewing IRS employees both in Washington and the Cincinnati field office where the misconduct originated — a process that will continue in the coming weeks.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/what's
 
They do not have to be approved... they can simply self declare.
Yes, I'm aware of that and posted this (with links) a few times.

Can you substantiate these as facts?:
1.The reason they petition the IRS is because they are questionable to achieve 501(c)(4) status because of their political activity.
2.They want the 501(c)(4) status as they would not have to disclose donors with this status....
3. these two factors (borderline qualification; blind donors) are the very reason they got extra scrutiny.
4. The right wing groups got most of it, because the Tea Party organizations were all being formed in the time frame.
Or do you stipulate these are opinions and 'left leaning' organizations would benefit similarly? If yes, then in this case why the disparity in the numbers who were subjected to 'extra scrutiny' and time for approval? (see IG report linked previously)
This all makes logical sense as being benign.
'Logical sense' does not make it a fact...Consider if on merely self declared and participated in whatever for ~3 years with no review/approval THEN were rejected (legitimately or not). How difficult would the 'unwinding' of their fiscal activities three years down the road? Could this be a reason for their desire to get c4 status first? And again, based on this wouldn't this be prudent for organizations of ANY leaning?
 
No, the law allows them to self declare. They do not need approval. Some see
it prudent to get a determination letter (the IRS agreeing they qualify) because their qualifications are questionable.

501(c)4 vs 501(c)3 vs 527

Social Welfare Organizations


Lol...yes, we've "wasted our time" paying attention to this as they simply could have "self declared" and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

How ideologically corrupt do YOU have to be to ignore the obvious ?

The release of donor list by the IRS to liberal activist groups, the apologies, top officials taking the fifth, the fact no LIBERAL groups or individual were harrased.

Your mitigations and selsective explanations wont make this go away.
 
To me, these organizations are a crock anyway. When you are flooding people with ads and mailers "pointing out" a candidate's record in either a positive or negative way, you are engaging in political activities designed to endorse or oppose a candidate. That said, if you are allowing all the ones from your side to go through for 20+ months while not letting any from the other side go through, then you clearly being political with the process. I'd be happy if they stripped all these folks on both sides who do this of their status, but what befuddles me is why is there not just an National Tea Party that can umbrella the local Tea Parties on the tax status issue?
 
holly paz is the irs director of rulings and agreements who informed evil darrell issa last monday that the irs, independent of tigta, had conducted its own internal review which found "significant problems" and "substantial bias" concerning the exemption office's treatment of wingnut and tinfoil outfits, which troubling findings ms paz' superior, nancy j marks (senior technical adviser), apprised then commissioner steven miller in a power point presentation on may 3, 2012, months before the fired commissioner lied repeatedly to congress about the "substantial bias" he was made fully aware of

Internal IRS probe cited same problems with approach to conservative groups in May 2012 - WaPo

it turns out ms paz, a donor to obama's presidential campaigns, was improperly in physical attendance at 36 of the 41 employee interviews conducted by russell george, the ig

Internal Revenue Service Scrutiny of Non-Profit Groups, Part 2 - C-SPAN Video Library

"why was holly paz in almost all of the interviews you conducted?” republican mark meadows (NC) asked ig george, "why would you have someone from the irs in those meetings, is that proper protocol?”

“i am unaware of it,” answered george, "this is the first I’ve heard this”

ranking member cummings was unconvinced

“usually when you are conducting an investigation, you want to keep your witnesses separate because you’re in search of the truth and you are trying to make sure there’s no advantage of a person hearing what somebody else said, that’s pretty standard procedure”

george ultimately conceded to cummings that “in hindsight, given this matter, obviously this seems somewhat unusual”

cummings: "it sounded like ms paz felt like she needed to be in the room because she wanted to be able to defend herself---or the agency"

“hindsight is 20/20, sir,” rejoined george

ms paz, on her part, can't remember who authorized the "unusual interview scheme"

"i can’t remember if i made the request or lois lerner made the request,” paz testified

exactly what is the irs working so hard to suppress?

stay tuned
 
there isn't really a strategic abuse of power

with all due respect, if you don't know, for example, who cindy thomas is, who are holly paz and nancy marks, if you are unfamiliar with colleen kelley...

then you are demonstrably judging before you have all the facts

why would you want to do that?
 
Last edited:
exactly what is the irs working so hard to suppress?
Culpability. They're protecting those above them by attempting to muddy the waters to avoid any guilt at all. It's the administrative equivalent of, "I dunno. **** happens." Or, if you like, "What difference does it make?" We're just trying to make certain it never happens again. Until it does, after which we'll make sure it never, ever happens again. Until it does...But hey, we got away with it, didn't we? And nobody lost their job, benefits, or went to jail. We win, we win! **** off, Tea Party.
 
Culpability. They're protecting those above them by attempting to muddy the waters to avoid any guilt at all. It's the administrative equivalent of, "I dunno. **** happens." Or, if you like, "What difference does it make?" We're just trying to make certain it never happens again. Until it does, after which we'll make sure it never, ever happens again. Until it does...But hey, we got away with it, didn't we? And nobody lost their job, benefits, or went to jail. We win, we win! **** off, Tea Party.

More like, "**** off America".
 

Thanks for illustrating point... people are making a mountain out of a molehill. There really is nothing here other than a bunch of bureaucrats using a short-cut to get their jobs done expediently because they are understaffed. The Cons have conjured up most of this hysteria because they need Obama to fail... The election is over; the economy seems to be working in his favor and the Cons have no original ideas or a political agenda.

When this all shakes out, those that are honest with themselves are going to feel foolish to buying into an hysteria based on what they think might have gone wrong (what I hope went wrong) ahead of actual facts.
 
how could a humble dp poster like the prof know 15 months ago and not the president?

IRS won't move tax status of Richmond tea party - WeeklyStandard

IRS Battling Tea Party Groups Over Tax-Exempt Status - HuffPo

why are shulman, miller and lerner lying?

Again, you do not need to apply to be a 501(c)(4), you declare yourself one. What most of these organizations sought was a determination letter given that their very nature put them in borderline status. They were trying to use 501(c)(4) status for their benefit (you don't have to disclose donors), though 501(c)(4) was not designed for political organizations. Of course the IRS is going to pause and challenge the application: its borderline, at best. Most of the organizations should have been 527s.
 
Last edited:
Again, you do not need to apply to be a 501(c)(4), you declare yourself one. What most of these organizations sought was a determination letter given that their very nature put them in borderline status. They were trying to use 501(c)(4) status for their benefit (you don't have to disclose donors), though 501(c)(4) was not designed for political organizations. Of course the IRS is going to pause and challenge the application: its borderline, at best. Most of the organizations should have been 527s.

Why did the IRS only go after Conservative orgs, then?
 
It is much to do about nothing. I actually have a decent understanding of what is happening here and most do not. It is actually quite comical how politicians and their constituencies are falling all over themselves crying for jail time, firings, impeachment, etc. When this all shakes out, people are going to feel quite foolish and those that tried to tell us how this was the greatest scandal since (well, the last greatest scandal) are going to look quite foolish.

The emperor has no clothes. The Cons will wish they spent this time and attention on Benghazi (or better yet, the AP scandal).
Even the IRS isn't defending the IRS. It takes an incredible degree of partisanship to call this nothing.
 
You sir, are closer to the truth then all but a few people on this board..... except, at the end of the day, there isn't really a strategic abuse of power; its lower level people that took short-cuts to get the job done.
link please, thank you
 
Thanks for illustrating point... people are making a mountain out of a molehill. There really is nothing here other than a bunch of bureaucrats using a short-cut to get their jobs done expediently because they are understaffed. The Cons have conjured up most of this hysteria because they need Obama to fail... The election is over; the economy seems to be working in his favor and the Cons have no original ideas or a political agenda.

When this all shakes out, those that are honest with themselves are going to feel foolish to buying into an hysteria based on what they think might have gone wrong (what I hope went wrong) ahead of actual facts.

slightly liberal hey? I cant say as I blame you for being "slightly" ashamed of being a liberal, on that you are spot on. cool aid cool aid, taste great
 
link please, thank you

whats troubling is that at every turn Obama and his cabinet have no clue what it going on until the media reports it. or so the story goes..
NEVER MIND the actual scandal
 
whats troubling is that at every turn Obama and his cabinet have no clue what it going on until the media reports it. or so the story goes..
NEVER MIND the actual scandal

Like Sergeant Schultz, they "know nothing." :lamo:lamo
 
Thanks for illustrating point... people are making a mountain out of a molehill. There really is nothing here other than a bunch of bureaucrats using a short-cut to get their jobs done expediently because they are understaffed. The Cons have conjured up most of this hysteria because they need Obama to fail... The election is over; the economy seems to be working in his favor and the Cons have no original ideas or a political agenda.

When this all shakes out, those that are honest with themselves are going to feel foolish to buying into an hysteria based on what they think might have gone wrong (what I hope went wrong) ahead of actual facts.

How is increasing the workload "expediting"?

Pretty surprised at this point that anybody would claim that the "Cons" are "conjuring up hysteria," so I'm going to ask if you've been keeping up with the Washington Post and NY Times op/ed pages? How can you not be aware that folks on all sides of the aisles recognize this scandal for the threat to our Republic that it is?
 
Why did the IRS only go after Conservative orgs, then?

Our media is terrible. They print the sensational headline but never bother to explain the much less explosive reality.

There's no indication that only conservative groups were investigated. There's not even evidence that conservative groups faced more scrutiny than liberal groups. In fact, the only group which had it's status refused was a charter of a previously approved Democratic leaning organization. Not only was it rejected, but the entire national group lost it's 501c4 status..

What we know is that the words Tea Party, and Patriot were used as part of the process to identify potentially political groups. We also know that four times as many conservative groups were approved than liberal groups. This was politically insensitive, but those keywords *should* be flags.
 
Our media is terrible. They print the sensational headline but never bother to explain the much less explosive reality.

There's no indication that only conservative groups were investigated. There's not even evidence that conservative groups faced more scrutiny than liberal groups. In fact, the only group which had it's status refused was a charter of a previously approved Democratic leaning organization. Not only was it rejected, but the entire national group lost it's 501c4 status..

What we know is that the words Tea Party, and Patriot were used as part of the process to identify potentially political groups. We also know that four times as many conservative groups were approved than liberal groups. This was politically insensitive, but those keywords *should* be flags.


I'm calling your bull crap out. you are falsely claiming this "four times as many conservative groups were approved than liberal groups"
so i have a few question of you i would like to ask sense you claim your so well informed.
how many tea part groups received the C4 status between 2009 and 2011?
tell me how many progressive groups received their C4 status during the same time?
If your are as informed as you falsely claim you are you should be able to answer that, and if you don't know how can you possibly make the claims you are making
 
Last edited:
i have a few question of you i would like to ask sense you claim your so well informed.
how many tea part groups received the C4 status between 2009 and 2011?
tell me how many progressive groups received their C4 status during the same time?
If your informed that you false claim you are you should be able to answer that, and if you dont know how can you possibly make the claims you are making

None as far as I know, though there were Tea Party groups approved earlier without any investigation. However, it's hard to label a delay as a hardship as organisations were free to act like 501c4's while they were being approved. They only risked having to reveal their donors if the IRS deemed them to be too political.

A better question is this: Do any Tea Party groups deserve 501c4 status? Are they exclusively dedicated to social welfare as stated in the law? Or are they non-profit PACs, the status reserved for political advocacy groups.

Of course these groups were investigated because of their politics. That's the point, they aren't allowed to be political. They should have filed as 527's, but they didn't want to disclose their donors as the law requires. It's like complaining that the FBI investigates too many bank-robbers for bank-robbery.
 
Our media is (sic) terrible

LOL!

welcome to the club

There's no indication that only conservative groups were investigated

indication?

well, even the ostriches...

i mean, we can understand how they wouldn't see what's so violently circling around em

but you'd think they'd at least have heard

DOJ opens criminal probe into IRS - The Hill

all the other big birds are screeching
 
Back
Top Bottom