Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 33 of 33

Thread: Darrell Issa Subpoenas Top Obama Political Aide

  1. #31
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,153

    Re: Darrell Issa Subpoenas Top Obama Political Aide

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The IRS asked questions about religion, as well as other personal and irrelevant questions; questions that aren't standard.

    Weirdest IRS Questions for the Tea Party: Views, Donors, and Etymology - ABC News
    questions that were designed to determine whether the applicant organization was eligible for 501c(4) status under the established criteria. to determine whether the applicant entity was an issue advocacy organization or one primarily engaged in political activities

    The link I posted clearly states that the IRS admitted to targeting groups with, "tea party", in their name. So...yes, they were.
    from the previous cite:
    They constituted about one-quarter of the 300 groups who were flagged for additional analysis by employees of the IRS tax-exempt unitís main office in Cincinnati.
    let me remind you that one-quarter is half of a half. and now let's examine what you previously posted:
    Why were ONLY groups with "tea party" and "patriot" the ones targetted?
    [emphasis added by bubba to make a stronger - more obvious - point]
    hopefully, you now realize that the tea party applicants could not be both one-quarter of those flagged and also be the ONLY applicants selected to be subject to more scrutiny

    No such law exists. However, there's damn sure a law that prohibits government employees from engaging in partisanship
    here you go, this is when the 501c(4) firms were able to engage in partisan politics but only where such activity was not its "primary" activity:
    [An] organization may carry on lawful political activities and remain exempt under section 501(c)(4) as long as it is primarily engaged in activities that promote social welfare.
    The History of the 501(c)(4) Exemption - Law Blog - WSJ

    How does membership to Facebook disqualify a group from non-profit eligibility?
    i don't know. why don't you share the fact information where you allege that actually happened. once i see what you are referring to, i should then be able to explain it for you

    Either way, the application should either be granted/denied by way of a standard criteria,
    then, by all means, please tell us the simple mechanism which should be used to determine which 501c(4) applicants are engaged in political activity as their primary activity
    i look forward to seeing this standard criteria being benchmarked for the IRS to use

    ... not questions invented especially to target a specific group, for political reasons.
    there are no political reasons why the IRS staff must assess the legitimacy of the applicants in relation to the established criteria to evaluate whether a firm meeting the 501c(4) criteria. they do it because that is their job; to monitor and assess compliance with the law, regulations, and standard operating procedures

    The fact that the applications were held in limbo for 12 plus months is evidence that these groups were denied their right to due process.
    wrong once again
    each of those firms had the opportunity to hold itself out as a 501c(4) entity. but if they self certified as such, and were then found to be other than an eligible organization, the entity would have to account for all that it was not previously held accountable to do while pretending to be a 501c(4) company

    If that were the case, then why weren't the applications denied, outright?
    where it was obvious they were not compliant with the provisions for 501c(4) certification, they would have been immediately denied. but share with us what benchmark should be used to determine whether "it is primarily engaged in activities that promote social welfare"
    if the standard were still that the firm must be entirely engaged in social welfare promotion, then ANY hint of partisan political activity would prevent the IRS from awarding a 501c(4) confirmation. but when it moved to a standard that the applicant's PRIMARY activity must be social welfare promotion, the IRS employee must now be able to make a determination whether the applicant's political activities rose to the degree of being its PRIMARY activity. in order to make such a determination, the employee must know and understand the totality of activities by the applicant. not a simple or quick task. now multiply it times the 300 applicants to be evaluated. which hopefully explains the legitimate basis of delay

    Why were these groups asked questions about their religion? Questions like that are discriminatory in nature and therefore another civil rights violation.
    share with us the specific questions you found to be civil rights violations

    To top it all off, Lerner invoked the 5th Amendment, which proves she broke the law.
    now, you have been prone to post many foolish things. none more misguided than that statement
    she like you, and i, has a right to assert her fifth amendment rights
    your foolish position then becomes that for one to assert their Constitutional rights causes them to be in violation of the law. read it again. your stated position is profound. profoundly ignorant
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  2. #32
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,889

    Re: Darrell Issa Subpoenas Top Obama Political Aide

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Pretty standard fair here.

    Attacking Issa personally and denying out right what the IRS has already admitted.

    Oh, and nothing is to be inferred by the White House's pathetic strategy to counter a " baseless politically motivated witchunt ".

    Yea, we're to ignore the fact that the Obama administration is handling this " witch hunt " in the WORST possible way.

    With lies, 5th amendment pleas and destruction of evidence.

    Lol !
    To be attacking Issa as if all the investigations were failures is goofy.
    Wasn't Issa that discovered there were 12 changes to the CIA report that took it from truth to lie in the Benghazi hearings? What about exposing this administration's lie to the American people that the attack was over some unknown video on YouTube when discovery proved everyone knew it was a terrorist attack and who was behind it from the beginning.
    Wasn't it Issa's committee through investigating Fast and Furious that our Atty. General Holder was found in contempt and perjured himself three times?
    Wasn't it Issa's investigation into the IRS early on that forced Lois Lerner to openly apologize for the wrongdoing blaming it on insignificant worker bees in Cincinnatti? Then how many times did she take the fifth?
    And wasn't it Issa's committee that Clapper lied to under oath when asked if the NSA was mining and collecting information on U.S. citizens and Issa's committee proved he lied and they later called for the man to be fired.
    And what about Tim Geithner Treasury secretary before Issa's committee was found to be less than truthful when asked for greater transparency of the massive $787 billion economic stimulus package and ongoing bank bailouts at the time. Later even Geithner admitted in his publish memoir that the Obama administration wanted him to lie on the Sunday talk shows about the condition of the economy.
    And Obama? Well he repeatedly lied to the people when he stated numerous times that the attack on Benghazi was over a YouTube video and so did Hillary Clinton. He told the American people after the stories broke on Fast and Furious and the NSA spying he knew nothing about them until he read about them in the newspaper. And told the American public during an interview with Bill Orielly there wasn't "a smidgen" of wrong doing by the IRS and we now know that was a lie too thanks in a big part by Judicial Watch.
    So what Issa has accomplished if nothing else is
    The head of the NSA is a liar
    The head of the DOJ is a liar
    The Secretary of State was a liar
    The Secretary of Treasury was asked to lie to the American people over the economy and less than truthful in his testimony before Congress.
    And the president has proved himself to be a liar whether it be his false promises that people would be able to keep their doctor, their insurance etc under Obamacare, or his response about the IRS "not a smidgen" of evidence of wrongdoing, or that the Benghazi attacks were over a YouTube video.

    How many times does an administration get to lie before people call them corrupt?
    Last edited by vesper; 07-13-14 at 03:02 AM.

  3. #33
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,496

    Re: Darrell Issa Subpoenas Top Obama Political Aide

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    questions that were designed to determine whether the applicant organization was eligible for 501c(4) status under the established criteria. to determine whether the applicant entity was an issue advocacy organization or one primarily engaged in political activities
    Their religion and Facebook membership is going to determine that? If the government asked you for a copy of your FB page, are you going to give it to them?


    from the previous cite:
    let me remind you that one-quarter is half of a half. and now let's examine what you previously posted:
    [emphasis added by bubba to make a stronger - more obvious - point]
    hopefully, you now realize that the tea party applicants could not be both one-quarter of those flagged and also be the ONLY applicants selected to be subject to more scrutiny
    It doesn't matter who was actually flagged; it's already been proven--per the IRS's own admission--that Conservative groups were the targets.


    here you go, this is when the 501c(4) firms were able to engage in partisan politics but only where such activity was not its "primary" activity:

    The History of the 501(c)(4) Exemption - Law Blog - WSJ
    Primary activity...


    i don't know. why don't you share the fact information where you allege that actually happened. once i see what you are referring to, i should then be able to explain it for you
    It's in the link I posted.


    then, by all means, please tell us the simple mechanism which should be used to determine which 501c(4) applicants are engaged in political activity as their primary activity
    i look forward to seeing this standard criteria being benchmarked for the IRS to use
    The IRS already has that criteria, which wasn't applied to these groups.


    there are no political reasons why the IRS staff must assess the legitimacy of the applicants in relation to the established criteria to evaluate whether a firm meeting the 501c(4) criteria. they do it because that is their job; to monitor and assess compliance with the law, regulations, and standard operating procedures
    There's a religion regulation? That sounds un-constitutional.


    wrong once again
    each of those firms had the opportunity to hold itself out as a 501c(4) entity. but if they self certified as such, and were then found to be other than an eligible organization, the entity would have to account for all that it was not previously held accountable to do while pretending to be a 501c(4) company
    The applications should have either been granted, or denied, not thrown on the bottom of the stack.


    where it was obvious they were not compliant with the provisions for 501c(4) certification, they would have been immediately denied. but share with us what benchmark should be used to determine whether "it is primarily engaged in activities that promote social welfare"
    if the standard were still that the firm must be entirely engaged in social welfare promotion, then ANY hint of partisan political activity would prevent the IRS from awarding a 501c(4) confirmation. but when it moved to a standard that the applicant's PRIMARY activity must be social welfare promotion, the IRS employee must now be able to make a determination whether the applicant's political activities rose to the degree of being its PRIMARY activity. in order to make such a determination, the employee must know and understand the totality of activities by the applicant. not a simple or quick task. now multiply it times the 300 applicants to be evaluated. which hopefully explains the legitimate basis of delay
    Why were the only one's held in Limbo Conservative groups?


    share with us the specific questions you found to be civil rights violations
    "What's your religion?"


    now, you have been prone to post many foolish things. none more misguided than that statement
    she like you, and i, has a right to assert her fifth amendment rights
    your foolish position then becomes that for one to assert their Constitutional rights causes them to be in violation of the law. read it again. your stated position is profound. profoundly ignorant
    If she hadn't committed a crime, she wouldn't--couldn't--invoke the 5th Amendment.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •