The media will continue to pretend that there’s nothing there, but it’s going to get harder and harder:
Lew, Carney and Obama himself act like people worried about a threat lying a little farther under investigators’ shovels. And they should be considering the suspicious timeline of Obama-appointed IRS chief counsel William Wilkins visiting the president on April 23 last year; IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman visiting the White House the next day; and Wilkins’ office sending the IRS “guidance” on the Tea Party the day after that.
Just a coinkidinky, I’m sure.
[Noon update]
Did the IRS coordinate with other agencies to target conservative groups?
Sure looks like it. Still waiting for Baghdad Jim’s explanation of why Lerner took the Fifth.
Yet everywhere you look comes another bolt of lightning keeping this Frankenstein monster “alive!”
And what are these “bolts of lightning”?
* Two conservative organizations were audited! Who knew that conservative organizations aren’t automatically exempted from IRS scrutiny?
* As the White House pushed an economic message about the middle class, the WH press secretary kept mentioning the middle class — obviously trying to distract reporters from the IRS scandal!
* The WH chief of staff admits that he doesn’t know what investigators will discover in the future, and that he doesn’t have next week’s PowerBall numbers.
* House Republicans reported that they think conservative groups were asked more questions than progressive groups!
With lightning bolts like these, it’s amazing impeachment hearings haven’t started already.
[Note: I posted this for Hal Duston, but for some reason WordPress won’t let me change the author’s name]
We found out right away that the initial explanation given, “rogue employees in the Cincinnati office”, was not accurate. The ACLJ showed letters from multiple offices requesting similar types of information.
Employees in the Cincinnati office have testified that they received direction from Carter Hull, an attorney in D.C. with the TEGE division.
Mr. Hull has testified that he received direction from individuals in the Office of the Chief Counsel, and that the direction seemed unusual and out of the ordinary.
We are now hearing about allegations that the IRS improperly shared tax payer information of two groups (American Future Fund and American Issues Project) with the FEC (where Lois Lerner was formerly head of enforcement) in regards to an open FEC investigation.
House panel probing whether IRS-FEC ‘inappropriately’ shared confidential tax information
I have read of allegations by Catherine Engelbrecht who created True the Vote, that both her personal and her corporate taxes have been audited, as well as having her (30 year old) business investigated by OSHA, the ATF, the FBI, and the TX EPA. Her 401(c)4 exemption status is still pending since after 36 months.
What’s going on between the IRS and True the Vote?
An IOWA pro-life organization were told their exemption would not be approved unless the board all signed statement the the effect that they would no longer protest Planned Parenthood. After they retained counsel, the IRS withdrew that requirement.
IRS SCANDAL: Iowa Coalition For Life President Testifies
This same organization was also asked to provide the content of their prayers during the application process.
Congressman: IRS asked pro-life group about ‘the content of their prayers’
Both the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse were audited for the first time shortly after placing advertisement’s in support of the North Carolina Marriage Amendment.
Letter from Franklin Graham
NPR reported that conservative groups were asked more questions than progressive groups.
Report: IRS Scrutiny Worse For Conservatives
At the same time, a charity created by Abon’go Malik Obama was approved soon after application, and the approval (signed by Lois Lerner) was back dated to cover the gap between creation and approval.
IRS stalled conservative groups, but gave speedy approval to Obama foundation
These are just the items I could recall off the top of my head.
If the public comes to believe that the IRS is not a neutral, non-political agency, I can only imagine that tax compliance will plummet dramatically.
The ACLJ showed letters from multiple offices requesting similar types of information.
So? The Cincinnati office had the bright idea of searching applications for keywords like “Tea Party” in order to find applications needing extra scrutiny. That’s the politically-slanted decision that set this all off (even though, as we learned later, there’s no evidence that the decision was politically motivated; instead, it seems to have been motivated by laziness). The fact that groups chosen for scrutiny got questions from various other offices is just IRS standard operating procedure, and doesn’t imply any wrongdoing.
allegations by Catherine Engelbrecht who created True the Vote, that both her personal and her corporate taxes have been audited
Isn’t the IRS supposed to audit people?
An IOWA pro-life organization were told their exemption would not be approved
And this was Obama’s fault how?
This same organization was also asked to provide the content of their prayers during the application process
By the same IRS that looked into liberal churches’ anti-war sermons in the 2000s.
were audited for the first time
Spooky!
NPR reported that conservative groups were asked more questions than progressive groups
NPR reported that House Republicans found that a certain set of conservative groups were asked more questions than a certain set of seven progressive groups. This proves approximately nothing.
These are just the items I could recall off the top of my head.
What you have is a grab bag of allegations suspicions, but no proof of any connection between them, or of any politically-motivated wrongdoing that connects back to the White House. Liberal groups had similar laundry lists of complaints when Bush was president — it’s human nature to think that the president you hate is out to get you. But paranoia is not proof.
If the public comes to believe that the IRS is not a neutral, non-political agency, I can only imagine that tax compliance will plummet dramatically.
Your concern is touching, but treating every instance of “conservative person gets audited” as “OMG Obama is Nixon reincarnate” is an odd way to reassure the public.
See? You can’t breach Jim’s reality deflection field. Facts such as two groups being audited for the first time following political ads in North Carolina are “a grab bag of allegations suspicions”.
Yeah, there couldn’t be any other possible explanation for two groups being audited after they made political ads. That could only happen on West Wing orders.
It doesn’t matter if there are “other explanations” or not. We have actual facts not merely allegations or suspicions. Two groups received their first audits at a time when the IRS was persecuting conservative groups.
“The Cincinnati office had the bright idea of searching applications for keywords like “Tea Party” in order to find applications needing extra scrutiny.”
Actually, those orders came from Washington not Ohio. You haven’t been keeping up with testimony given to congress. But this has been pointed out to you daily so I can see why you keep repeating yourself.
“Isn’t the IRS supposed to audit people?”
Jim your defense seems to be that the IRS conducts audits so any audit they conduct is justified. But there rules in place for deciding who gets audited and what is supposed to happen in an audit. Those rules were not followed. But you know this…
Orders not to follow those rules came out of the highest levels of the IRS from people who met with Obama immediately prior to persecuting political dissidents. But you know this…
I have to say this again. Your dislike for the Tea Party or other conservative groups does not justify breaking the law in order to prevent them from freely assembling, petitioning the government, or advocating for issues they think are important.
Conservative groups are entitled to the same rights that Democrat groups enjoy.
those orders came from Washington not Ohio. You haven’t been keeping up with testimony given to congress
You’ve been imagining the content of that testimony. Show me one piece of testimony that indicates that the use of “Tea Party” and “9/12 Project” keywords was ordered from Washington.
your defense seems to be that the IRS conducts audits so any audit they conduct is justified
Your contention seems to be that any audit of a conservative group is proof of wrongdoing.
Those rules were not followed. But you know this…
No, I don’t, because no one has proven that any of these audits were performed against IRS rules, much less for political reasons. You are confusing things you think are probably true with things that have actually been shown to be true.
does not justify breaking the law in order to prevent them from freely assembling, petitioning the government, or advocating for issues they think are important.
There isn’t evidence that any of those things happened. The only thing that’s been proven is that Tea Party and 9/12 groups got extra scrutiny, for reasons that have nothing to do with Obama.
Conservative groups are entitled to the same rights that Democrat groups enjoy.
Nobody disagrees with this.
“You’ve been imagining the content of that testimony. ”
I pointed this out to you at the time and I will probably have to do it again.
http://investordiscussionboard.com/node/63167/thread
**”Two IRS employees reportedly told congressional investigators that targeting of Tea Party groups in 2010 came from agency officials in Washington, according to a report by The Wall Street Journal.
Transcripts of interviews with the two employees seem to contradict previous claims by top IRS officials blaming lower-level workers in Cincinnati, The Wall Street Journal reported.”**
Imagine that. People testifying that the story coming out of the Obama administration is not accurate…
“Your contention seems to be that any audit of a conservative group is proof of wrongdoing.”
No. It is the totality of cases that far exceed historical precedent and are not matched by similar investigations into Democrat groups. And it isn’t just the IRS but the DOJ, EPA, FEC and other federal agencies that have been participating in the Obama administration’s crackdown.
“No, I don’t, because no one has proven that any of these audits were performed against IRS rules,”
The IRS IG said this in the report that was supposed to be released in 2012 but whose release was delayed until after the election. The effect was politically discriminatory regardless of intent but the intent was there.
“There isn’t evidence that any of those things happened. ”
That is exactly what did happen and why people are so upset.
“The only thing that’s been proven is that Tea Party and 9/12 groups got extra scrutiny,”
So now you admit that they got extra scrutiny? Just the other day you said they didn’t. Baby steps I guess.
“for reasons that have nothing to do with Obama.”
These groups expressed views critical of Obama and that is why they were attacked by the IRS and the Obama administration.
“Conservative groups are entitled to the same rights that Democrat groups enjoy.
Nobody disagrees with this.”
Jim, you disagree with this. You keep commenting on how conservative groups should not get tax exempt status and that they deserved what happened to them.
I pointed this out to you at the time and I will probably have to do it again.
Don’t bother, it doesn’t say what you claim it says. It says:
There’s nothing wrong with asking questions and consulting with IRS lawyers about applications — that’s what the IRS should be doing. The wrongdoing was using politically slanted keywords. You claim that the keyword searches were done on orders from Washington, but if you have any evidence of that you haven’t shared it.
It is the totality of cases that far exceed historical precedent and are not matched by similar investigations into Democrat groups
You have no proof of that, all you’ve got is a handful of conservatives complaining that they were audited. You don’t know how many non-conservatives have been audited, and you don’t know why various groups and individuals were selected to be audited. You are just imagining a conspiracy because it suits your worldview.
The IRS IG said this in the report
Show me where in the IG report it states that politically-motivated audits of conservative groups were performed against IRS rules. Note: this is a separate issue from the keyword targeting, which had to do with processing special tax status applications, not audits.
the intent was there
What evidence do you have of intent?
These groups expressed views critical of Obama and that is why they were attacked by the IRS and the Obama administration.
Are you a mind reader? What’s your evidence? A Republican IRS employee who was involved in using the keyword targeting said it had nothing to do with politics. Do you have the testimony of a single IRS employee saying that they attacked groups because the groups were critical of Obama? If so you might alert Rep. Issa — he claims he hasn’t heard any such evidence.
You keep commenting on how conservative groups should not get tax exempt status and that they deserved what happened to them.
Conservative groups and liberal groups should get whatever tax status they legally qualify for. I don’t think that groups that are primarily political should get 501c4 status, because the law says that status is reserved for groups that aren’t primarily political. So I think it’s odd for primarily political groups to be complaining about their difficulties getting that status, regardless of their ideology. I don’t think Crossroads GPS (Karl Rove’s group) should have gotten 501c4 status, and I don’t think Priorities USA (the pro-Obama group) should have gotten it either. A primarily political group (conservative or liberal) that applies for 501c4 tax status deserves whatever questions the IRS throws at them.
Jim, Obama’s own campaign got tax exempt status in a month while consertive groups waited years. Other Democrat groups also got speedy decisions. The IRS is using a different rule book based on political ideology.
You don’t need a statement from an employee stating the intent, the actions made the intent abundantly clear. And there was intent because standard proceedures were not followed.
You want to say it was a few rogue staffers in Ohio but the orders came from Washington. How far up the food chain it goes, we don’t know. But the evidence points to approval at the highest levels of the IRS, possibly from people appointed by Obama.
If this was just the bad actions of IRS officials, then why wasn’t everyone envolved fired and brought up on charges? Instead the administration vigorously defends the IRS and people like Lerner got bonuses and promotions.
Groups were prevented tax exempt status, groups who already had tax exempt status were audited, individuals associated with these groups were audited. If you don’t know that stats on audits, you can’t claim that nothing improper took place, especially since the IRS already admitted to wrong doing.
And it isn’t just the IRS but other government agencies that went after conservative groups. The Obama administration has a culture of corruption and intimidation. It is far past time to put an end to these activities.
It is great you think liberal groups shouldn’t get tax exempt status but that doesn’t excuse the IRS going after conservative groups while giving Democrat groups preferential treatment.
At least you admit that the IRS targeted conservative groups, something you denied for a long time.
Odd fact: The only people staying less informed than Jim about the IRS scandal are out on patrol aboard nuclear ballistic missile submarines.
Is Jim reall that uninformed, GT, or choosing to ignore reality to keep up his Baghdad Bob-like party-line regurgitating? Or is it just another case of denial not being just a river in Egypt?
Jim is a Turing machine programmed to defend the Unicorn Prince in all things at all times. He’s part of a secret program to replace the legal profession with iPhone apps.
Obama’s done plenty that I can’t defend:
* Aggressively prosecuting leakers
* Maintaining the Bush-era NSA surveillance systems
* Ramping up the drone war
* The Afghan surge
* Cash for Clunkers
* Pitiful programs for underwater homeowners
* Declining to prosecute bank wrongdoing leading to the crash
* Declining to prosecute torturers
* Failing to nominate judges and officials to open positions in a timely fashion
* Failing to push for more accommodating monetary policy
* Nominating Chuck Hagel
And I’m sure there are many others.
He’s part of a secret program to replace the legal profession with iPhone apps.
Would that be a bad thing?
“Maintaining the Bush-era NSA surveillance systems”
Don’t blame Bush for Obama’s actions. Obama is a grown man. President of the United States of America. Elected twice. Perhaps it is time to hold Obama accountable for his actions and the fallout from them and stop blaming Bush or some other boogeyman.
Aggressively prosecuting leakers
Who?
Maintaining the Bush-era NSA surveillance systems
The word is expanding, not maintaining.
Ramping up the drone war
Expanding works here too, but ramping up is close enough.
Cash for Clunkers
Sorry, I missed your complaints over the noisy crickets.
Declining to prosecute bank wrongdoing leading to the crash
Sorry, crickets again; what did you say?
Only if they incorporate the “logic” you bring to debates.
Still waiting for Baghdad Jim’s explanation of why Lerner took the Fifth.
Presumably because her lawyers calculated that the odds of her being charged are lower if she takes the Fifth. But that doesn’t mean that she did anything illegal, much less that the administration ordered her to do something illegal. Her taking the Fifth “proves” that there’s a real scandal in the same way that Obama’s initial refusal to release his birth certificate “proved” that he wasn’t born in the U.S.
She didn’t have to worry about being charged as long as Eric Holder is running the Justice Department. She just didn’t want to talk about what she’s been up to.
How kind of her to give you the inside story!
So Holder will be charging her?
Testimony so far shows she broke the law and has a history of targeted political persecution at her prior job at the FEC.
Pleading the fifth may not mean she is guilty but it doesn’t mean she is innocent. And if she isn’t charged with a crime, it doesn’t mean she is innocent.
Presumably because her lawyers calculated that the odds of her being charged are lower if she takes the Fifth.
Charged with what, Jim? The Fast and Furious case was even worse, accessory to murder in up to 200 cases. But the only convictions were some straw buyers. Eric Holden has yet to be held accountable for perjury to Congress in that case. So what risk was Lerner avoiding by pleading the Fifth? I think it was the risk of admitting an actual crime.
I find it interesting how you can defend a public official who takes the Fifth. My view is that if I were president then she would have been fired in short order after having done such a thing. Her job at that moment was to give full and honest answers to US Congress. If she can’t do that, I’m sure I could find someone who could. But maybe such people are really hard to come by in the Obama administration.
Does Obama even have the power to fire career civil servants? Do you want the president to have the power to fire career civil servants so that it will look like he’s doing something about a political scandal?
The IRS should have fired her without any pressure from Obama but she got bonuses instead. This points to the head of the IRS being totally cool with using the IRS against Obama’s political opponents.
Lerner got promoted to a new position at HHS. Obama could have fired her from that department since he can apparently dictate whatever he wants to HHS.
Of course, he should and does have that power.
In response, I ask you this. Why shouldn’t the highest elected office in the land have the power to fire unelected career civil servants who worked under them for any reason at all? Now, I know from experience that you’re remarkably clueless about division of power. But how will the US voter have any control at all over the federal government, if their representatives can’t remove from power any bureaucrats who act against the interests of the US and its people? That’s a fast way to create a puppet government run behind the scenes by those career bureaucrats.
As to looking like he’s “doing something”, that is one of the roles of a head of state. And I already noted that we have a legitimate reason for firing Lerner other than the sake of appearances – failure to do her job by testifying in front of Congress.
As an aside, people are still being killed with weapons provided by the Fast and Furious operation.
[…]
I’m still curious why Jim hasn’t said much about this case other than to gloat that the perpetrators haven’t been brought to justice.
Is there any reason to believe that F&F made any difference in the number of murders in Mexico? F&F guns were a tiny fraction of the guns moving over the border. This murder was only news because it was a F&F gun; how many Mexican police chiefs have been killed with American guns that weren’t part of F&F?
So because Mexico has a violent society it is ok to sell guns to cartels?
You are basically saying that because you think Mexico is a crappy country it doesn’t matter what Obama does to them. Sort of like your IRS defense where their illegal actions are excused by your dislike for the people they went after.
That isn’t how our system is supposed to work Jim.
Is there any reason to believe that F&F made any difference in the number of murders in Mexico?
Doesn’t matter, Jim. That’s not a valid defense for accessory to murder.
There are several things to remember here. First, F&F guns went to one cartel, the Sinaloa cartel. Second, they were high quality weapons. Third, we don’t know what else was smuggled with these weapons. But we do know that F&F was a blank check for the Sinaloa cartel to smuggle into Mexico.
Fourth, we are told that over a five year period which included the full operating period of F&F, 94,000 firearmswere recovered in raids. Of that total, somewhere around 1400 were recovered F&F weapons (plus whatever other firearms were smuggled with F&F weapons). So it looks to me like at least 2% of all weapons smuggled into Mexico came via the F&F program. Given the quality and hassle-free nature of the smuggling, I think this was material assistance to the Sinaloa cartel.
Remember that the IRS scandal story only became a big deal because of its timing, coming out the same week as new revelations about Benghazi, and Snowden’s NSA revelations. With all that unflattering news appearing the same week, surely there was a scandal! But the NSA story — the most important of the three — isn’t a scandal, it’s a policy dispute, with members of both parties on both sides of the dispute. The Benghazi story quickly petered out, and it’s now been months since there’s been any news on that front. Likewise, the further investigators got into the IRS story the less clear-cut it became, and no smoking gun proving White House involvement or political motivations has emerged. Even Issa admits that he doesn’t know whether the IRS did anything wrong for political reasons. It’s just like Fast and Furious, the birth certificate, Joe Sestak, and all those other would-be Obama scandals: a lot of sound and fury, signifying very little.
“Remember that the IRS scandal story only became a big deal because of its timing, coming out the same week as new revelations about Benghazi, and Snowden’s NSA revelations. ”
Well, the report on IRS attacking groups based on political affiliation was supposed to come out in 2012 but was held back due to the election. Strange that even after the report was finished that the illegal behavior continued. This shows that there was high level approval either at the IRS or the white house for what was going on.
And don’t forget how we found out about the report. Lerner staged a question in a press conference several days before the report was to be released to the public. So are you saying that this was timed by Lerner to coincide with other bad news for the administration? Seems she would have coordinated that with someone in the white house.
So are you saying that this was timed by Lerner to coincide with other bad news for the administration?
Hardly. The timing couldn’t have been worse for the administration. If I was as conspiracy-minded as the rest of you I’d argue that Lerner was working for the GOP; instead I’d just chalk the timing up to luck.
So Lerner was working for the GOP by persecuting groups aligned with the GOP? That makes total sense…
“Hardly. The timing couldn’t have been worse for the administration.”
But you said, “Remember that the IRS scandal story only became a big deal because of its timing”
This timing wasn’t from Republicans breaking a story. It was from someone in the Obama administration planting a question in a press conference. Not sure how planting a question to break a story on a Friday before the release of a damning IRS IG report the following week is “luck”.
Lerner received around $100,000 in bonuses and they were so large they had to be approved by the head of the IRS. In what world would a woman who was known to be culpable in using the IRS as a weapon against the administration’s enemies get any bonuses? Not only that, she kept her job and got a promotion.
That says her bosses approved of her performance, meaning they are also culpable.
You must have really sucked at those “connect the dots” books when you were a kid.
Rand,
In order to reveal whether or not someone sucks at connect the dot books, they have to first open the book and try one.
GIGO Jim has not even acquired the book, never mind opening it up….
Remember that the IRS scandal story only became a big deal because of its timing, coming out the same week as new revelations about Benghazi, and Snowden’s NSA revelations.
No, it didn’t come out at that time. The NSA revelations were much later. But what’s supposed to be special about the timing, Jim? There’s always a few scandals cooking at the Obama White House. It was going to come at some unfortunate time no matter when that was. The only thing special about the timing is that it came after the 2012 election and that is heavily in Obama’s favor.
Sorry, it wasn’t the Snowden NSA revelations, it was the AP phone records.
There’s always a few scandals cooking at the Obama White House
The rightwing media is always harping on something (FEMA coffins, $200M/day trip to India, etc.) but the rest of the media and the general public don’t pay much attention to those crazy scandals du jour. The IRS story broke out into the mainstream in part because of its timing. Obama himself rushed to get in front of it, promising that heads would roll. But every week since the scandal has seemed less and less important, and now we’re in the stage where most of the media is embarrassed for having oversold it.
Obama said heads would roll but they never did and now he says its phony. Is it phony or is it a case of serious illegal actions?
The IRS story broke because a report that was supposed to be released in 2012 was released in 2013. The timing didn’t push the story in the media, it was the seriousness of the actions. Had the report been released at any other time, it would have generated as much outrage. Which is exactly why the release of the report was delayed until after the election.
It is funny that you can’t keep up with whether a scandal is Obama spying on reporters or spying on the American people. Neither of those scandals had anything to do with Republicans but you claim it is just Republicans making stuff up.
Sort of like the IRS stuff. It didn’t arise from Republican conspiracy theories but from a delayed IG report. Or F&F which arose from investigations in dead border patrol and Mexicans shot with Obamaguns.
Republicans sieze on these issues but they didn’t create them, the Obama administration did.
Wodun,
In order to “keep up” one has to actually read/listen to/observe what’s actually happening rather than what one’s handlers are telling you.
Obama himself rushed to get in front of it, promising that heads would roll.
And he lied, didn’t he? So here we have yet another case of wrongdoing go unpunished. What’s it going to take, Jim?