Time to turn the tables on them:
From testimony by the nation’s archivist, we know the IRS destroyed e-mails, contrary to federal law. From IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, we know it did so even though they were evidence in another case.
If the IRS indeed has nothing to hide, the best way to prove it is to get that independent audit True the Vote is asking for.
Indeed. Why would they object.
Unless, of course, they have something to hide. Which looks more likely by the day.
Rand, I know it feels good that the people at the IRS should get a taste of their own medicine, to be subject to the same scrutiny they dish out to everyone else.
What folks at the IRS often remind us, the unpleasantness of the tax code is what Congress writes and the President signs into law.
I for one don’t want to receive vicarious satisfaction from giving persons in the IRS “a taste of the cat-o-nine-tails.” The IRS is not the problem. I want to see where this leads — much, much higher up.
I don’t want “vicarious satisfaction.” I want the truth.
All parties are covering for each other… you can’t even see the tipping point in the rear view mirror. But you never know, could the media get behind a real scandal?
its motion asking for an outside specialist in data recovery to be permitted to conduct a forensic audit into the lost Lois Lerner e-mails
Is guaranteed to be so limited in scope to prevent a real audit.
True the Vote calls itself “the nation’s largest nonpartisan, voters’ rights and election integrity organization.”
Nonpartisan organizations don’t give $5,000 to the Republican State Leadership Committee.
That’s irrelevant. If the IRS has nothing to hide, they should welcome an independent review.
That’s irrelevant.
The fact that an “election integrity organization” blatantly lies about its purpose is irrelevant?
If the IRS has nothing to hide, they should welcome an independent review.
An argument that proves too much; you can use it to justify any sort of fishing expedition. Would you volunteer for an IRS audit? If not, does that prove you have something to hide? Or could it merely indicate that you think such an audit would be a waste of your time?
Asking for an independent review of the loss of evidence in an investigation that was supposed to be preserved is not a “fishing expedition.”
If it were a fishing expedition, it would be equivalent to shooting fish in a barrel. Probe this bunch of legalized gangsters, and you’re sure to find something fishy and rotten.
it would be equivalent to shooting fish in a barrel
And yet, after years of multiple Congressional committees, dozens of hearings, hundreds if not thousands of subpoenas and interviews, the GOP has yet to come up with any criminal charges that stick. So either the GOP is part of a massive cover-up, or it’s all just a show for gullible GOP voters.
Because the IRS has been withholding and destroying evidence.
Because the IRS has been withholding and destroying evidence.
Along with the ATF, the CIA, the State Department, the DOJ, the BLS, and of course the White House. For such a sprawling conspiracy, it’s been amazingly effective at keeping all the incriminating evidence away from investigators.
Actually, it hasn’t. We’ve seen a great deal of incriminating evidence, even if you want to hold your hands over your eyes and say “Lalalalalalalala.”
We’ve seen a great deal of incriminating evidence
Then where are the indictments? Where are the convictions? The evidence you’ve seen is “incriminating” only to a right wing media that will believe anything negative about Democrats, from allegations of Obama’s foreign birth to stories planted by Cuban intelligence.
Are you insane?
There will be no indictments, let alone convictions, as long as we have a corrupt Attorney General.
as long as we have a corrupt Attorney General.
Who along with Lois Lerner has been held to be in contempt of Congress. When we had Administrations in the past interested in the rule of law rather than their own power, contempts of Congress were properly referred to the DoJ and prosecutors would seek Jim’s desired indictments and convictions. Lerner may yet be found in contempt by a court. Koskinen might join her.
Otherwise, Congress is taking its time to conduct a proper investigation. Just last week, Jim was saying Congress was jumping to conclusions.
There will be no indictments, let alone convictions, as long as we have a corrupt Attorney General.
The notion that the Attorney General can block any and all prosecutions across the country, without leaving a trace, is laughable.
The notion that I made such a claim is laughable.
Perhaps what they mean is that they are non-partisan when it comes to discovering voter fraud…whether perpetrated by democratics or republicans
The fact that an “election integrity organization” blatantly lies about its purpose is irrelevant?
Who is John Galt?
$5000? How many millions has the IRS given to Democrats? Isn’t the IRS supposed to be impartial and non partisan? And the lies from the Obama administration and his IRS are far greater than what you are quibbling about.
$5000?
Wodun, do you think it’s okay for 501c3 tax-exempt charities to give money to political parties? Is it bad in general, but okay if the amount is only $5,000? Is it bad, but okay if the IRS does bad things?
How many millions has the IRS given to Democrats?
Zero. If you have documentation of IRS donations to Democrats, by all means share it.
And the lies from the Obama administration and his IRS are far greater than what you are quibbling about.
So it’s okay for True the Vote to lie about being nonpartisan, because others lie too? Your argument is that lying is all relative? That’s a fascinating morality. And it is, as usual, circular:
W: Obama and the IRS are terrible!
J: How do we know?
W: True the Vote says they’ve been treated terribly!
J: True the Vote blatantly lies about its partisan status, and flagrantly abuses its charitable tax status, by giving money to the GOP
W: Why are you quibbling about that, Obama and the IRS are terrible!
The Watergate burglers were committing a crime, but what was their motive?
The general notion is that this was a “dirty tricks” operations to get any kind of dirt they could on the Democrats. A more specific theory is that there was a rumor that a call-girl ring was operating out of DNC headquarters (I didn’t say this was factual but that there was a rumor to that effect). What “Watergate” was about was trying to “get the goods” on the call-girl ring to smear the Democrats.
Suppose there was evidence of a crime taking place at the DNC? It didn’t in any way justify the break in.
What “Watergate” was about was trying to “get the goods” on the call-girl ring to smear the Democrats.
There are lots of theories. One is that they were trying to get dirt that Larry O’Brien (DNC chair) had on Nixon. O’Brien had been Howard Hughes’s lawyer, and one of Hughes’ associates told Nixon’s brother that O’Brien had incriminating documents about Nixon’s dealings with Hughes.
Back at the IRS: we still don’t have something akin to the Watergate break-in, an obviously malicious and illegal act.
“Wodun, do you think it’s okay for 501c3 tax-exempt charities to give money to political parties?”
Were they a tax exempt group in 2012 when the donation was made? Wasn’t this group several years into IRS persecution at this point? Are you trying to say that a $5k donation in 2012 excuses what Obama’s IRS did in 2010? I am not sure if a donation would run afoul of the rules, although it could, but TTV was persecuted by the DOJ, EPA, OSHA, IRS, and maybe some other government organizations years before this donation was even made.
“Zero. If you have documentation of IRS donations to Democrats, by all means share it.”
Virtually all of the political donations by IRS employees went to Democrats. There isn’t anything illegal about it but it is another example that they have a partisan bent.
“So it’s okay for True the Vote to lie about being nonpartisan”
It isn’t illegal to be partisan and a 501c3. There are thousands of Democrat groups that are partisan. Why even Obama’s own campaign organization was turned into a “non-profift charity” despite the explicit purpose laid out in their charter to be a partisan advocate for Obama. It doesn’t matter if groups have a political ideology, what matters is the amount of time they spend on politics. Are you now saying no non-Democrat 501c3’s can have a mission statement or an ideology but it is ok that Democrat groups do?
“Your argument is that lying is all relative?”
Not at all. You claim this group was lying about their purpose, “The fact that an “election integrity organization” blatantly lies about its purpose is irrelevant?”
But they didn’t lie about their purpose. Just because you don’t like their perceived political affiliation doesn’t mean they are not concerned with voter integrity. Also, if they did not qualify for 501c3 status, then they should have been rejected, not persecuted for years by Obama’s IRS and DOJ. They faced extra-judicial punishment despite breaking no laws and not just the group but the individuals who made up that group as well as the businesses affiliated with those people.
In no way is Obama’s use of government agencies to persecute political dissidents relative to TTV trying to get tax exempt status.
Why even Obama’s own campaign organization was turned into a “non-profift charity
OFA is not a charity. You can’t deduct donations to OFA. There’s a difference between 501c3 and 501c4.
MoveOn.org Civic Action is a 501(c)(4) organization which primarily focuses on nonpartisan education and advocacy on important national issues. MoveOn.org Political Action is a federal political committee which primarily helps members elect candidates who reflect our values through a variety of activities aimed at influencing the outcome of the next election. MoveOn.org Political Action and MoveOn.org Civic Action are separate organizations.
Why don’t you ever complain about this group, Jim?
Oh, he will say that all money is bad in politics but he wont say anything about how only non-Democrat groups were persecuted by the Obama administration.
Then there is Hillary Clinton getting hundred thousand dollar speaking fees, but she’s not running as a candidate while going around asking “are you ready” and “I’m poor and live in multiple million dollar homes”.
Why don’t you ever complain about this group, Jim?
What should I complain about? Have they given money to a political party?
At best, Jim’s argument means TTV should have been pursuing 501c4 status and not 501c3. A just IRS could have simply stated that and been done. But in term of donating to political candidates, Organizing for Action is a 501c4 and Barack Obama’s personal campaign organization. To point, its website is BarackObama.com.
The Clinton Foundation is a 501c3 organization. Hillary is using its offices. It pays for her travel. And those are just the obvious ways in which money that might otherwise be needed for a campaign are funneled to her via a non-partisan organization.
Are 501c4s allowed to give money to political parties? I honestly don’t know, but it seems doubtful. 501c3s definitely aren’t allowed to (otherwise you could make tax-deductible campaign contributions).
OFA became a 501c4 after the 2012 election, i.e. after Barack Obama’s last political campaign. I’m all in favor of the stricter proposed IRS rules on political activity by 501c4s, which would keep groups like OFA from abusing their status as tax exempt social welfare organizations.
As for the Clinton Foundation, I do think Hillary Clinton’s role there is troubling, because people may donate to the foundation in attempt to buy political access. But I don’t know of a good remedy; you can’t stop former presidents from using their fame and connections for charitable purposes, and you can’t stop their spouses from being a part of that. And really, there’s a difference between Hillary Clinton traveling for the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton campaigning for president, just as there’s a difference between Mike Huckabee being paid by Fox News to comment on politics and Mike Huckabee paying Fox News to run Mike Huckabee for President commercials.
“OFA became a 501c4 after the 2012 election, i.e. after Barack Obama’s last political campaign.”
Yes, after over two years of persecuting Tea Party groups and preventing them from forming a group similar to OFA, which received its determination in less than a month. OFA did all of the things you say Tea Party groups should not get tax exempt status for. What we see here is the best example of how Democrat affiliated groups were given special treatment while conservative groups, individuals, donors, and businesses were persecuted for years.
“m all in favor of the stricter proposed IRS rules on political activity by 501c4s, which would keep groups like OFA from abusing their status as tax exempt social welfare organizations.”
Who cares? You can say whatever you want but it doesn’t change the fact that Democrat groups got preferential treatment while non-Democrat groups were targeted and harassed. Even if going forward Democrat groups were treated the way Tea Party groups are, it doesn’t change the illegal actions taken by Obama’s IRS for the last four years.
“But I don’t know of a good remedy”
We could do what Obama illegally did to non-Democrats since laws don’t mean anything? Or change tax law regarding tax dodging trustafarian Democrats who wont pay their fair share? Or pressure Democrats not to willfully abuse the system and reward unethical behavior? There are a million things that can be done and not all of them require a government solution but they do require some integrity so I guess Democrats wont do anything.
Um, yes. If you really want to have a free and open system you’d be complaining about both sides.
Since all you do is complain about the right, nobody trusts you.
Um, yes.
MoveOn Civic Action donated money to a political party? Tell me more.
If you really want to have a free and open system you’d be complaining about both sides.
That only makes sense when both sides are doing the same thing. Show me that a liberal 501c3 gave money to the Democratic party, and I’ll complain about it.
Since all you do is complain about the right, nobody trusts you.
By that standard no one should trust anything on this site, since all it does is complain about the left. My comments here are in reaction to that. If I were commenting at a left wing site, I’d be complaining about the left.
“MoveOn Civic Action donated money to a political party? T”
How many Democrats give money to Move On so that Move On can act as a PR department of the Democrat party?
How many Democrats give money to Move On so that Move On can act as a PR department of the Democrat party?
MoveOn.org or Move On Civic Action? They are different organization, and have to operate by different rules.
They are different organization, and have to operate by different rules.
They share the same website.
“Have they given money to a political party?”
No, they act as the PR wing of the Democrat party. They don’t have to give money they give media, manpower, advertising, ect. You are not holding Democrat groups to the same standard you hold Tea Party, pro-life, and groups related to Israel.
“Liberals” in power (and by “liberals” I mean of course “tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State-f*ckers”) would always protect the IRS from harm. The IRS is their favorite goon squad of “enforcers.” And “liberals” love the Iron Boot.
Jim,
First your party screws up health care with Medicare and Medicaid. Forty years later it makes it even worse by increasing control over the industry.
Why? Because you on the left feel that it should be done. You don’t think things through, you feel them through. You think you have the moral high ground because you want government to Do Something. But what is done is irrational and destructive to the economy at best.
But it doesn’t matter, because you Feel That Something Should Be Done and ramming a health policy through is the Moral and Right Thing To Do.
Do you code your software with your heart or your head? It doesn’t take an IQ over 40 to show that you need a brain to write software. But you never use it with economics.
You look foolish as you try to rationalize policies based on feelings.
I would just add, Jon, that there’s a significant segment of the HIve that knows in fact exactly what it’s doing. For them, whether their policies will bring about bad results is largely irrelevant. The main result their policies will bring about is the expansion of State power and with it, the contraction of individual liberty. That’s their goal: anything else is just a side effect, or an excuse. (“We’re stealing your money, but it’s for the children!”) Then of course there are the actual sociopathic if not psychopathic “liberals” who actually DESIRE bad effects: the Cloward-Piven crowd, among whom our illustrious president may be one. I haven’t decided if Jim is just one of the dupes, or one of the knowing statists who just get off on wielding the Mailed Fist, to hell with the consequences.
Your view into my psyche is unrecognizable, but nonetheless fascinating.
That’s their goal: anything else is just a side effect, or an excuse
You have that backwards: human welfare and happiness is the goal, expansion or contraction of state power is a mechanism or side-effect. I assume this is projection; since your goal is reducing state power, you assume that your adversary’s goal must be to enlarge it. But the two sides are not mirror images, they actually have different priorities.
You have that backwards: human welfare and happiness is the goal, expansion or contraction of state power is a mechanism or side-effect. I assume this is projection; since your goal is reducing state power, you assume that your adversary’s goal must be to enlarge it. But the two sides are not mirror images, they actually have different priorities.
This must come from Wonderland. Everything you have ever argued, except for the military, is for the expansion of state power. It is implied from your words that to increase human welfare you must expand state power. There is no projection. If you want to discuss Jungian psychology, go right ahead.
Everything you have ever argued, except for the military, is for the expansion of state power
I think NASA should stop building rockets. I think states should stop requiring licenses for occupations like cutting hair. I think most zoning should be relaxed. I think cities should stop enforcing taxi cartels at the expense of things like Uber. There are lots of situations where I think the best solution involves less government. I judge it by the situation, not a knee-jerk “more government bad, less government good”.
Your view into my psyche is unrecognizable, but nonetheless fascinating.
It is very clear to everyone here.
“human welfare and happiness is the goal”
Lol what a bunch of BS. Who gets their jollies by persecuting political dissidents?
“expansion or contraction of state power is a mechanism or side-effect.”
Only because that is all the Democrats try and do. To Democrats, every problem requires an expansion of government intrusion into everyone’s lives. It looks like expansion of power is the goal and the ever shifting first world problems used by Democrats to justify their actions are merely pretexts.
“But the two sides are not mirror images, they actually have different priorities.”
Except you already admitted that expansion of state power must happen in order for you to address your priorities. You can’t or don’t separate the two.
Sure, Jim. That’s all the Hive wants–good stuff for everyone. And if we can’t believe Baghdad Jim , who can’t we believe?
And I’ve noticed that the left is all about pushing other people to support poor people. But republicans give far more to charity than the dems do. Who really cares?
Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Enact a robust social safety net, you feed him, and everyone else, whenever they are hungry. Who really cares?
You’re really going to regurgitate that propaganda?
Charity comes with behavioral rules. Ever been to the Salvation Army? Conservatives realize that in order to get people out of poverty, the poor need to make habitual changes.
Your side just says, here’s some money, and call it a “robust social safety net.” Nice Orwellian twist. You’ve had 50 years of the war on poverty and you haven’t made a dent. Got a reason for that?
Mitt was right. A young girl that avoids pregnancy, completes high school and doesn’t get married till her early twenties will avoid poverty most of the time. Your side calls her a victim and makes her dependent on a system that doesn’t give a rats rear end about her except her vote.
You’ve had 50 years of the war on poverty and you haven’t made a dent.
It significantly cut the fraction of Americans living in poverty, which is what it set out to do.
“It [the War on Poverty] significantly cut the fraction of Americans living in poverty . . .”
Really? How significant? And by what standard of significance? I know, BJ, that your usual MO is party-line regurgitation, but can you give us some data on this–and tell us your source? What percentage of the populace who were poor prior to the War on Poverty were permanently lifted out of poverty by the “War”? And at what cost? ( I mean, the overall dollars-and-cents cost of the “War/” The cost to the US in terms of expanding the State is another issue.) Then take that cost and divide it by the number of people you say were permanently lifted out of poverty, and we can see how much it cost to help each individual. Then we can ask: Was this trip necessary?
” . . . which is what it set out to do.”
Again: really? I’m old enough to remember when that great humanitarian, Lyndon Johnson, launched the War on Poverty, and I don’t recall such a modest goal being touted as the aim of the War. (Of course the real aim was to buy votes with taxpayer money, but that’s another matter.)
You really ought to consider getting the quote right: “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”
I thought it was “…teach a man to fish, and he’ll be a liar for a lifetime.”
” Enact a robust social safety net, you feed him, and everyone else, whenever they are hungry. Who really cares?”
The people who pay for the net and objective observers that look at the results of programs and not just intentions.
You forget, wodun, that BJ belongs to the Cult of the State. That means he is part of the Elect, and the Elect have license to force the rest of us to pay for whatever they want.
It’s probably just a concidence that the Hive–while according to Baghdad Jim, not MEANING to expand the power of the State at the expense of liberty–invariably ends up doing so. And when it happens I’m sure they cry crocodile tears and say, “Goshwow, we sure hated to lower the Mailed Fist on America! We just HAD to do it!”
That will come as great consolation to those of us who love liberty when it is taken away from us. “Gee, it’s sure good to know that Baghdad Jim never INTENDED us for serfdom!”