The SS (Schutzstaffel - Protection Squad) or the IRS ?

Photo-fish wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Why didn't the IRS reveal this partisan intimidation before the election? Turns out they had applied for an extension before going public. :splat:

Why didn't the Republicons reveal this partisan intimidation before the election? Turns out they new about it months before.
Republicans Informed of IRS Investigation Last Year
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/republicans-informed-of-irs-investigation-last-year/

So the GOP knew a year before the nation's president? I guess they don't want to interrupt his campaigning with daily briefings?

Photo-fish wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Why didn't the IRS reveal this partisan intimidation before the election? Turns out they had applied for an extension before going public. :splat:

Why didn't the Republicons reveal this partisan intimidation before the election? Turns out they new about it months before.
Republicans Informed of IRS Investigation Last Year
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/republicans-informed-of-irs-investigation-last-year/

Yes... that article is interesting... but not for the reason you think... buried further down is the real "meat"...

On Friday, in his testimony before the House Ways & Means Committee, George said he had notified top Treasury officials — including Deputy Secretary Neal Wolin — about his investigation in June 2012, part of a routine briefing on the issues he was looking into.

Republicans pounced on that revelation as evidence top Administration officials knew about the targeting of conservative groups well before the 2012 election.

Thanks for that link!!!

Photo-fish wrote: Why didn't the Republicons reveal this partisan intimidation before the election? Turns out they new about it months before.
Republicans Informed of IRS Investigation Last Year
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/republicans-informed-of-irs-investigation-last-year/

Yes, the Republicans were concerned about possible IRS intimidation and bias because they were getting reports about it. They asked the IRS about it in a letter. The IRS replied that they will look into it.

Here is what was asked.

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/2012-06-28-DEI-Jordan-to-George-TIGTA-tax-exempt-status-questionnaire.pdf

And here is the short IRS reply which doesn't say anything was wrong, just that they'd look into it.

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/2012-07-11-George-TIGTA-to-DEI-tax-exempt-status-questionnaire-re-6-28.pdf

So what's the point? Did the IRS give them any new info that abuse was happening before the election? I don't see it.

Blazer Bob wrote:

WASHINGTON ( The Borowitz Report)—President Obama used his weekly radio address on Saturday to reassure the American people that he has “played no role whatsoever” in the U.S. government over the past four years.

“Right now, many of you are angry at the government, and no one is angrier than I am,” he said. “Quite frankly, I am glad that I have had no involvement in such an organization.”


The President’s outrage only increased, he said, when he “recently became aware of a part of that government called the Department of Justice.”

“The more I learn about the activities of these individuals, the more certain I am that I would not want to be associated with them,” he said. “They sound like bad news.”

Mr. Obama closed his address by indicating that beginning next week he would enforce what he called a “zero tolerance policy on governing.”

“If I find that any members of my Administration have had any intimate knowledge of, or involvement in, the workings of the United States government, they will be dealt with accordingly,” he said.

I know this is a parody but so many times, they are right on target!
:rofllol
Fast & Furious? Never heard of it!
IRS intimidation? Wasn't me!
DOJ spying on the press? I have no knowledge of this.

LadyJazzer wrote:
[snip]

These organizations were basically asking to have TAXPAYERS subsidize them in order to use the silly rules to hide their donors and lob tax-free-subsidized bombs at whatever perceived political boogy-man they see. (And so were some of the liberal groups.) This was about enhanced scrutiny for the designation--not harassment-after-the-fact. (In point of fact, none of them were denied status...Some of the liberal groups were.)

Comparing heightened scrutiny in acquiring a tax-free/donor-hiding designation to the IRS-audits during the Bush years (demanded not by Bush, but by GOP senators), for the NAACP and some anti-war churches is apples and oranges. Groups like Crossroads GPS, the myriad of Koch Brothers backed hit-groups, etc., DESERVE to be subjected to heightened scrutiny...Such is the reality in the post-Citizens United world.

I still do not condone ANY GROUP being singled-out for "special treatment", but methinks they doth protest too much.

And what's wrong with these sort of groups having 501(c)4 status' granted?

This get better and better...

White House story on IRS targeting "evolves"

In a briefing Monday afternoon, presidential press secretary Jay Carney offered new information on what the White House knew about an internal IRS report on the targeting of conservative groups—information that’s at odds with the impression Carney left last week.

Carney said at a briefing a week ago: ”My understanding is that the White House Counsel’s Office was alerted in the week of April 22nd of this year, only about the fact that the IG was finishing a review about matters involving the office in Cincinnati. But that’s all they were informed as a normal sort of heads up.”

And two days later, Carney described the notification as “a top-line notification,” adding: “t was also made clear that the matter was still under review and not completed.”

But in Monday’s briefing, he revealed that after White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler was informed that the probe was coming to its conclusion, she told White House chief of staff Denis McDonough and other senior White House staff. Carney also said that Ruemmler was made aware of the report’s key finding: that IRS personnel had improperly targeted conservative groups for special scrutiny. And he added that the White House then held meetings with the Treasury Department to discuss strategy for responding to the report.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/05/20/white-ho ... g-evolves/

Full disclosure. I added the quote marks around the word "evolve" because that's exactly the treatment it deserves. This is not evolution, this is lying on the administrations part.

This is getting better and better.

The IRS asked about the content of a group's prayers as part of their application for 501(c)X status. But don't you worry about those voices warning you of tyranny, pay them no mind, ignore them, right? Never mind that by any reasoned interpretation the IRS targeted groups based on their religious and political views for special scrutiny, "randomly" audited people for the first time ever after their affiliation with or sponsorship of such groups was made public. And here you are seriously asking that donor lists be required to be submitted to this government agency? Do I have that right?

You want me to believe that the IRS isn't going to misuse that information while an investigation is under way because the IRS misused that kind of information? Seriously? The president is out there saying pay no mind to those who warn you of tyranny while the offices of the government his branch is responsible for are out there apologizing for their attempts to intimidate the electorate with a particular set of religious or political views?

The whole "disclosure" was an orchestrated event for crying out loud! The question from the floor was planted by the muckety-mucks at the top of the IRS food chain! You seriously expect that anyone with an IQ that is greater than room temperature is going to believe that the whole "coming out" party wasn't war gamed with the Chief of Staff or other senior members of the administration before hand? Now, it is certainly conceivable that they kept all of it from the head honcho himself to give him "Plausible Deniability" when push came to shove, but even that is a bit difficult to swallow whole given his speech about ignoring the voices warning of tyranny that was given immediately before the IRS planted the question that was spoon fed to their representative.

Perhaps this administration isn't nearly as good at wagging the dog as they thought they were?

"ABC News visited the IRS Determinations office in Cincinnati, OH, the office that determines eligibility for 501(c)(3) and (4) groups. It has become a security state.

On Thursday morning, after news that Miller was sacked, two ABC News journalists walked into the Peck Federal Building in Cincinnati looking for answers. The newsmen were screened at the door by security. They emptied their pockets as instructed, removed their belts, then went through the metal detectors.We wanted to ask who about made the decisions in the unit and when the profiling started. And whether those decision makers been identified yet.


But the answers – like the people involved – remained elusive.

As we traveled the public hallways of the building – watched over by security cameras – an armed uniformed police officer with the Federal Protective Service followed us."..................

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/05/20/ha ... rs-office/

Don't like PJMedia? Here is the ABC story.


"At the IRS office on the fourth floor, a woman who answered the buzzer referred reporters to officials in Washington, though they were not returning very many calls. That staffer also said she was not allowed to speak to anyone – a line that was repeated by agency personnel during the week.

IRS headquarters in Washington denied that a no-talk rule was official policy because, after all, agency staffers still have a constitutional right to talk to whomever they want.

"Our policy is that press inbounds (queries) are referred to the press office," a spokesman said. "But people have First Amendment rights, they are entitled to speak."

Asked whether employees were reminded of the official media policy this week, the spokesman said "no."

Not so, said IRS folks in Ohio. ..................

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/irs-scan ... ZqWhtgSpJ2