• 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!

Judicial Watch: New Documents Show IRS HQ Control of Tea Party Targeting

pbrauer said:
The Democrats had nothing to do with it, it started with the manager in the Cincinnati office conservative David Shafer. He didn't know how to handle the Tea Party so he contacted Washington, it wasn't the other way around. If you have not already done so, read post #47.
Click to expand...

please see the article that contradicts your claims. there is a reason that learnor or whatever her name is won't testify before congress.
 
ludin said:
please see the article that contradicts your claims. there is a reason that learnor or whatever her name is won't testify before congress.
Click to expand...

Lerner, and isn't she going to be forced to testify?
 
ludin said:
please see the article that contradicts your claims. there is a reason that learnor or whatever her name is won't testify before congress.
Click to expand...
What article?
 
pbrauer said:
You want me to watch a ****ing two hour video, besides that's not truth.
Click to expand...

I want you to watch both. That is legal testimony, under penalty of law, and it includes documentation. There is more-it just requires the compliance that the IRS and Democrats aren't willing to give at this point.

No matter, its going to be extracted from them anyway-kicking and screaming the entire time. This might be a good time to realize that there is nothing "fake" about this, and its certainly not going away.

Benghazi got a select committee, this will also-as stated the only question is if the committee is formed now, or after the dems lose the senate. With obstructionist dems removed we can get to the bottom of this issue which Obama states so outrages him.
 
US Conservative said:
I want you to watch both. That is legal testimony, under penalty of law, and it includes documentation. There is more-it just requires the compliance that the IRS and Democrats aren't willing to give at this point.

No matter, its going to be extracted from them anyway-kicking and screaming the entire time. This might be a good time to realize that there is nothing "fake" about this, and its certainly not going away.

Benghazi got a select committee, this will also-as stated the only question is if the committee is formed now, or after the dems lose the senate. With obstructionist dems removed we can get to the bottom of this issue which Obama states so outrages him.
Click to expand...
Are you nuts? That's not going happen.
 
Gill said:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/judicial-watch-documents-show-irs-172513364.html

One email showing coordination between Cincinnati and Washington:



The most troubling revelation is that Senator Carl Levin (D, Mich.) asked the IRS to investigate a number of conservative groups that opposed him and the Obama administration:



Appears to be a bit more than a "smidgeon" of corruption at the IRS, contrary to Obama's assertions.
Click to expand...

The liberty and individualist movement is making a strong push and our authoritarian government hates that and they will do everything they can possibly do to silence this movement.
 
US Conservative said:
You think I dont know this? This is what these guys do-ask for data and then instantly ignore it. Its a coping mechanism, my intent is merely to demonstrate it.
Click to expand...

which is why i don't see a point in posting information for them it is to much work just for them to say uh huh i win argument.
 
pbrauer said:
Authoritarian government? :lamo

Transcripts show IRS agents in Cincinnati -- not Washington -- flagged Tea Party cases
Click to expand...

This goes to corrupt Congress demo's pushing this. You progressives really ****ed up this time. Problem is, until the current criminal running DoJ is out the truth won't be revealed. But when it you disgusting anti American pukes will scatter and crawl back under the rocks not to be found for another hundred years. I hope we are still free people then.
 
ludin said:
it doesn't matter what you post he will still deny it.
Click to expand...

That's why.....I always remind about perception. :lol:


sk051514dAPR20140515094517.jpg
 
MMC said:
That's why.....I always remind about perception. :lol:


sk051514dAPR20140515094517.jpg
Click to expand...

The following USA Today article from June 11, 2013 shows President Obama was correct when he told Bill O'Reilly on Super Bowl Sunday that there was not a "smidgen" of corruption. READ IT!

Transcripts show IRS agents in Cincinnati -- not Washington -- flagged Tea Party cases

...The Tea Party affair started with a Feb. 25, 2010 e-mail (see below) from Cincinnati-based IRS agent Jack Koester to his boss, Screening Group Manager John Shafer. Shafer, in turn, sent it to his superiors, including some Washington staff, elevating it as a "high profile case."

The Cincinnati employees weren't quite sure what the Tea Party was, but they knew it was politically sensitive. "This case will be sent to inventory for further development. Political campaigns on behalf (of) or in opposition to any political candidate do not promote social welfare," Shafer wrote to his bosses. The Tea Party groups were seeking tax exempt status as "social welfare" groups.

A few days later, Shafer came back to Muthert asking him to look up how many Tea Party cases had been received, and how many had already been approved. "He told me that Washington, D.C wanted some cases," Muthert said, according tot he transcripts.

Shafer, though, told congressional investigators that he asked for the list on his own -- not on orders from Washington. "No one said to make a search," he said.

"Based on what I saw at the time, this organization is something — I don't know what it is, but it is something that appears to be growing, some type of movement," Muthert said. "So when I was asked to research the Tea Parties, it was like OK, I understand why you would want me to look at these cases and see if there is going to be a million coming in or not."...​

judicialwatch-foia-20140515-irsscandal.jpg
 
Here ya go PB......seems the Democrats.....and Obama have a very real and live issue to deal with. As now with this and Benghazi.....for the Republicans. Its no lose situation.


The politics of the IRS scandal.....


Yet, it seemed immediately apparent to me that the IRS story overwhelms the other two in terms of the potential danger posed to the administration. Why? Because any American can easily understand the unfairness and fearsomeness of using the taxing power for partisan political purposes.

But my confidence in these sorts of political assessments isn’t sky high these days. Thus, I was happy to read that Nate Silver also sees political resonance in the IRS scandal. He assesses the likely political fall-out from a scandal by asking the following five sensible questions:

The long-and-short of Silver’s analysis of these questions is that “the I.R.S. story scores relatively high, meaning it could have a substantial political impact.”

As to the first question, “simplicity seems to be on the Republicans’ side in the I.R.S. case in a way it hasn’t been on Benghazi.” As to the second, “the I.R.S. story has the potential to affect perceptions of the executive branch, the Democratic Party and the United States government as a whole, and Mr. Obama.” Similarly, as to the third, “when it comes to the grievances of Tea Party voters in particular, the I.R.S.’s actions could hardly be more substantively or symbolically resonant.”

Fourth, Republicans face little risk of a backlash when they press the administration on the IRS’s conduct. It will be difficult to portray concern about IRS abuses as a partisan squabble. President Obama and other Democrats sense this, as is clear from their initial public reaction.

Finally, does the IRS scandal arise in a slow news cycle? I would say no, given Benghazihate. But Silver argues that this puts Republicans in something of a no-lose position:.....snip~

The politics of the IRS scandal | Power Line


One thing is a fact.....even Democrats know they can't get the country to turn on the Repubs over any issue with the IRS. No matter what spin game they bring.
 
MMC said:
Here ya go PB......seems the Democrats.....and Obama have a very real and live issue to deal with. As now with this and Benghazi.....for the Republicans. Its no lose situation.


The politics of the IRS scandal.....


Yet, it seemed immediately apparent to me that the IRS story overwhelms the other two in terms of the potential danger posed to the administration. Why? Because any American can easily understand the unfairness and fearsomeness of using the taxing power for partisan political purposes.

But my confidence in these sorts of political assessments isn’t sky high these days. Thus, I was happy to read that Nate Silver also sees political resonance in the IRS scandal. He assesses the likely political fall-out from a scandal by asking the following five sensible questions:

The long-and-short of Silver’s analysis of these questions is that “the I.R.S. story scores relatively high, meaning it could have a substantial political impact.”

As to the first question, “simplicity seems to be on the Republicans’ side in the I.R.S. case in a way it hasn’t been on Benghazi.” As to the second, “the I.R.S. story has the potential to affect perceptions of the executive branch, the Democratic Party and the United States government as a whole, and Mr. Obama.” Similarly, as to the third, “when it comes to the grievances of Tea Party voters in particular, the I.R.S.’s actions could hardly be more substantively or symbolically resonant.”

Fourth, Republicans face little risk of a backlash when they press the administration on the IRS’s conduct. It will be difficult to portray concern about IRS abuses as a partisan squabble. President Obama and other Democrats sense this, as is clear from their initial public reaction.

Finally, does the IRS scandal arise in a slow news cycle? I would say no, given Benghazihate. But Silver argues that this puts Republicans in something of a no-lose position:.....snip~

The politics of the IRS scandal | Power Line


One thing is a fact.....even Democrats know they can't get the country to turn on the Repubs over any issue with the IRS. No matter what spin game they bring.
Click to expand...
I see you don't want to deal with the facts I presented in my post.:roll:
 
pbrauer said:
I see you don't want to deal with the facts I presented in my post.:roll:
Click to expand...

The FACTS have yet to come out, but thankfully the special committee will get to the truth and the facts.
 
pbrauer said:
I see you don't want to deal with the facts I presented in my post.:roll:
Click to expand...



I see you don't want to look at what the Political Ramifications are.....now as we speak, huh? Well what do you have to say now about the Testimony from the IRS Attorney Cleta Mitchell?
rolleyes.png




White House spin on IRS scandal collapsing quickly.....
May 16, 2014 <<<<< !


The administration has claimed from the beginning that any special attention give Tea Party groups and other conservative organizations came strictly at the direction of people in the Cincinnati office, and was in no way directed by anyone in Washington.

That was always hard to believe, but now we’re seeing clearer evidence that it was a lie. The latest testimony comes from IRS attorney Cleta Mitchell, who says very clearly that she talked to people in Cincinnati and they weren’t running the show.

“I never heard from Cincinnati,” Mitchell said. “We only dealt with Washington.”

And these folks in Washington, whose bidding were they doing? Democrat Sen. Carl Levin for one.

CAIN051514.jpg


The Daily Caller reports that Levin wrote a March 30, 2012 letter to Douglas Schulman discussing the urgency of the potential of possible political activity by nonprofit entity.....snip~

White House spin on IRS scandal collapsing quickly



:Oopsie......Looks like they forgot about Levins Letter.
think.gif
 
Born Free said:
The FACTS have yet to come out, but thankfully the special committee will get to the truth and the facts.
Click to expand...
The information in post #92 were facts derived from Darrell Issa's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
 
MMC said:
I see you don't want to look at what the Political Ramifications are.....now as we speak, huh? Well what do you have to say now about the Testimony from the IRS Attorney Cleta Mitchell?
rolleyes.png




White House spin on IRS scandal collapsing quickly.....
May 16, 2014 <<<<< !


The administration has claimed from the beginning that any special attention give Tea Party groups and other conservative organizations came strictly at the direction of people in the Cincinnati office, and was in no way directed by anyone in Washington.

That was always hard to believe, but now we’re seeing clearer evidence that it was a lie. The latest testimony comes from IRS attorney Cleta Mitchell, who says very clearly that she talked to people in Cincinnati and they weren’t running the show.

“I never heard from Cincinnati,” Mitchell said. “We only dealt with Washington.”

And these folks in Washington, whose bidding were they doing? Democrat Sen. Carl Levin for one.

CAIN051514.jpg


The Daily Caller reports that Levin wrote a March 30, 2012 letter to Douglas Schulman discussing the urgency of the potential of possible political activity by nonprofit entity.....snip~

White House spin on IRS scandal collapsing quickly



:Oopsie......Looks like they forgot about Levins Letter.
think.gif
Click to expand...

Again, you are not dealing with the facts I presented in post #92. And your posting from one the most dishonest sites on the internet .. The Canada Free Press. And written by the dishonest pizza man Herman Cain. A quick Google search shows Cleta Mitchell is not an IRS attorney, so it doesn't matter what she said. Also the Levin Letter was written over two years since the targeting started.
 
pbrauer said:
Again, you are not dealing with the facts I presented in post #92. And your posting from one the most dishonest sites on the internet .. The Canada Free Press. And written by the dishonest pizza man Herman Cain. A quick Google search shows Cleta Mitchell is not an IRS attorney, so it doesn't matter what she said. Also the Levin Letter was written over two years since the targeting started.
Click to expand...



PB.....did you want to talk news sources. I can throw up Politico.....Politi-Fact. Fact Check.Org. You don't think Media Matters or Think Progress. Mother Jones, or Daily Kos, can actually Compare to a real News Organization Like the Chicago Tribune; who happens to own the L.A. Times , Chicago Suntimes and Post Tribune, did you?........or did you want to go with the false Narrative, that they don't have Levin's Letter.

What Facts PB.....Mitchell says she never dealt with Cinci.....and that's not a Coincidincy neither, you do know her Partner Foley Correct? :mrgreen:


Oh and were you having trouble finding Cleta Mitchell.....here let me help you out with that.


Cleta Mitchell.....

07756.jpg


Cleta Mitchell is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Foley & Lardner LLP and a member of the firm’s Political Law Practice. With more than 40 years of experience in law, politics and public policy, Ms. Mitchell advises nonprofit and issue organizations, corporations, candidates, campaigns, and individuals on state and federal campaign finance law, election law, and compliance issues related to lobbying, ethics and financial disclosure. Ms. Mitchell practices before the Federal Election Commission, the ethics committees of the US House and Senate and similar state and local enforcement bodies and agencies.

Ms. Mitchell has extensive experience on the federal lobbying and ethics law enacted by Congress in 2007, having taught dozens of seminars on the subject since its passage. In 2008, Ms. Mitchell authored The Lobbying Compliance Handbook, published by Columbia Books, Inc.

Ms. Mitchell represents numerous candidates, campaigns and members of Congress, as well as state and national political party committees. She has served as legal counsel to the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee. Ms. Mitchell served as co-counsel for the National Rifle Association in the Supreme Court case involving the 2002 federal campaign finance law.

Ms. Mitchell has testified before Congress on numerous occasions related to election law, campaign finance and lobbying and ethics laws, and is a frequent speaker and guest commentator on political law. In 1999, she authored "The Rise of America’s Two National Pastimes: Baseball and the Law," published by the University of Michigan Law Review, and in 2012, Ms. Mitchell authored “Donor Disclosure: Undermining The First Amendment,” published by the Minnesota Law Review. In 2013, she was interviewed by The Wall Street Journal, “How to Investigate the IRS.”.....snip~


You were saying something about her and her credentials.....now. Oh yeah.....that she wasn't an IRS attorney. But then that was mostly false.
rulings%2Ftom-mostlyfalse.gif
 
Last edited:
MMC said:
PB.....did you want to talk news sources. I can throw up Politico.....Politi-Fact. Fact Check.Org. You don't think Media Matters or Think Progress. Mother Jones, or Daily Kos, can actually Compare to a real News Organization Like the Chicago Tribune; who happens to own the L.A. Times , Chicago Suntimes and Post Tribune, did you?........or did you want to go with the false Narrative, that they don't have Levin's Letter.

What Facts PB.....Mitchell says she never dealt with Cinci.....and that's not a Coincidincy neither, you do know her Partner Foley Correct? :mrgreen:


Oh and were you having trouble finding Cleta Mitchell.....here let me help you out with that.


Cleta Mitchell.....

07756.jpg


Cleta Mitchell is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Foley & Lardner LLP and a member of the firm’s Political Law Practice. With more than 40 years of experience in law, politics and public policy, Ms. Mitchell advises nonprofit and issue organizations, corporations, candidates, campaigns, and individuals on state and federal campaign finance law, election law, and compliance issues related to lobbying, ethics and financial disclosure. Ms. Mitchell practices before the Federal Election Commission, the ethics committees of the US House and Senate and similar state and local enforcement bodies and agencies.

Ms. Mitchell has extensive experience on the federal lobbying and ethics law enacted by Congress in 2007, having taught dozens of seminars on the subject since its passage. In 2008, Ms. Mitchell authored The Lobbying Compliance Handbook, published by Columbia Books, Inc.

Ms. Mitchell represents numerous candidates, campaigns and members of Congress, as well as state and national political party committees. She has served as legal counsel to the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee. Ms. Mitchell served as co-counsel for the National Rifle Association in the Supreme Court case involving the 2002 federal campaign finance law.

Ms. Mitchell has testified before Congress on numerous occasions related to election law, campaign finance and lobbying and ethics laws, and is a frequent speaker and guest commentator on political law. In 1999, she authored "The Rise of America’s Two National Pastimes: Baseball and the Law," published by the University of Michigan Law Review, and in 2012, Ms. Mitchell authored “Donor Disclosure: Undermining The First Amendment,” published by the Minnesota Law Review. In 2013, she was interviewed by The Wall Street Journal, “How to Investigate the IRS.”.....snip~


You were saying something about her and her credentials.....now. Oh yeah.....that she wasn't an IRS attorney. But then that was mostly false.
rulings%2Ftom-mostlyfalse.gif
Click to expand...

She isn't employed by the IRS, that's the point. forgetaboutityournotinterestedinfactsonlybs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom