Soulshiner wrote: Withhold info before the election? You mean like how RMoney wouldn't release his tax records.
This is a partisan witch hunt that is going to end up hurting the Republicans that hype it up to extreme levels more than their targets.
Sure... that's why the TIGTA report indicates there was definitely IRS targeting of conservative groups and mention that word 16 times. And this "partisan witch hunt" was order by the Treasury department... not the GOP. They wouldn't have ordered this audit if they didn't have some indication that it was necessary.
But you go on touting the leftist talking points... you may convince some low-infomation trash that there is not any "there there" but it doesn't work for intelligent and informed citizens.
For those that need colors to better understand...
This graph from the Washington Post shows the number of nonprofit approvals from the IRS for the years 2009-2012 based on "code names" in the application. There are five code names shown, and each group shows 2009-2012 approvals (except the first group which is 2010-2012).
If you can't see an obvious pattern, especially up to the year 2011, then you must be blind. The graph isn't perfect in that you don't see the number off applications, but it clearly shows if you had the code name "progressive" in your application, you did very well compared to the others. And it shows a whole lot of progressive groups did get approvals, so I don't see much support for claiming this was something that just the conservative groups were trying to do. Plus the graph only shows one liberal group code name ("progressive"). They could of included other liberal code names as well since they showed 4 conservative code names.
IRS targets conservative groups
By Dan Keating and Darla Cameron, Published: May 15, 2013
The IRS grants tax-exempt status to 40,000 nonprofit groups per year. When the IRS began targeting conservative groups' applications in 2011, nonprofit approvals for groups with
tea party or 9-12 in their name stopped entirely. Five groups with those names had been approved in 2009 and 2010, but zero were approved in 2011. After policy reconsideration in 2012, the backlog was broken and 27 groups were approved, mostly in the second half of the year.
The slowdown was evident with other conservative-sounding groups, as well. Thirty-seven groups with the words patriot or constitution had been approved in 2009 and 2010, but only 10 were approved in 2011. Once again, the backlog was relieved in 2012 with 29 approvals.
On the other hand, groups with the word progressive in their names suffered no similar slowdown pattern. The number of approvals increased each year from 17 in 2009 to 20 in 2012.
And Soulshiner, shame on you for such a misguided remark. We at least knew that Romney wouldn't disclose his taxes beyond 2 years before the election. But we had no clue before the election that the IRS was practicing this discriminatory BS. The IRS did start approving conservative organizations again in 2012, but that was mostly in the second half of the year and would of done little good for them before the election, and we didn't know that at the time either. If the tables were reversed, how would you of felt if the IRS did the same thing to liberal groups during the Bush administration? Need I even ask?
WASHINGTON — A top IRS official in the division that reviews nonprofit groups will invoke the 5th Amendment and refuse to answer questions before a House committee investigating the agency’s improper screening of conservative nonprofit groups.
Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, won’t answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening — or why she didn’t disclose it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor III. Lerner was scheduled to appear before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday.
“She has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course,” said a letter by Taylor to committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Vista). The letter, sent Monday, was obtained Tuesday by the Los Angeles Times.
Taylor, a criminal defense attorney from the Washington firm Zuckerman Spaeder, said that the Department of Justice has launched a criminal investigation, and that the House committee has asked Lerner to explain why she provided “false or misleading information” to the committee four times last year.
Since Lerner won’t answer questions, Taylor asked that she be excused from appearing, saying that would “have no purpose other than to embarrass or burden her.” There was no immediate word whether the committee will grant her request.
Here is the word now... yes... she will be in front of the committee tomorrow (Wed. 05-22-2013) and she can publically plead the 5th for two hours. Great optics. Nothing to see here... huh? Bullcrap.
WASHINGTON -- For all the outcry over who in the White House knew about an inspector general report detailing instances of the Internal Revenue Service targeting conservative groups, it turns out someone else was getting regular updates on the issue over the past year: Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).
J. Russell George, a Treasury Department inspector general, testified Tuesday to the Senate Finance Committee that his department was in touch with Issa's office several times in 2012 and this year regarding its IRS investigation.
Here's a transcript of the exchange between George and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), a member of the committee:
MENENDEZ: Inspector General, did Chairman Issa send a letter on August 3rd of 2012 to all the inspector generals reminding them that under the Inspector Generals Act, it requires IGs to report particularly flagrant problems to Congress through the agency head within seven days, via what has been known as the seven-day letter? Did you receive that letter? And, if so, did you respond to inform Chairman Isaa of your investigation into the IRS?
GEORGE: Senator, we did receive the letter, and Chairman Issa's committee was the first to actually contact us regarding this matter. And so through the course of engaging the review, on occasion we have had communications with his staff.
MENENDEZ: In 2012?
GEORGE: And since then, yes.
As someone said... "Never let an outrage go to waste."...Just delay it for a year until it can be used to better political-advantage, and act like you didn't know.....
Your theory that Issac withheld this manes no political sense at all. If toy want to trash the IRS and Obama do it before the election and change the outcome. Is this from HuffPo too?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
FredHayek wrote: Your theory that Issac withheld this manes no political sense at all. If toy want to trash the IRS and Obama do it before the election and change the outcome. Is this from HuffPo too?
You are correct. LJ's post makes no sense.
It's basically the same thing as when LJ posted that the Republicans "doctored" emails. That made no sense either since why would they doctor an email which could easily be disproved by the White House simply releasing the actual email? And as was already posted, the Washington Post fact checker tore that claim to bits...
So now LJ is doing the same thing again. Her link makes specific charges, but gives nothing to support the claims (terrible link!). And it makes no sense once again.
I could show how misleading that link is with a timeline of what happened with the IRS scandal. But it's late now and I don't have the time nor desire to look it up. Maybe tomorrow if I have time.
Bottom line is why does LJ just keep cutting and pasting stuff without thinking about it? Pure political BS. She attacks people on the other side for doing this, but she probably does it more than anyone here, especially during the last election.
FredHayek wrote: Your theory that Issac withheld this manes no political sense at all. If toy want to trash the IRS and Obama do it before the election and change the outcome. Is this from HuffPo too?
You are correct. LJ's post makes no sense.
It's basically the same thing as when LJ posted that the Republicans "doctored" emails. That made no sense either since why would they doctor an email which could easily be disproved by the White House simply releasing the actual email? And as was already posted, the Washington Post fact checker tore that claim to bits...
So now LJ is doing the same thing again. Her link makes specific charges, but gives nothing to support the claims (terrible link!). And it makes no sense once again.
I could show how misleading that link is with a timeline of what happened with the IRS scandal. But it's late now and I don't have the time nor desire to look it up. Maybe tomorrow if I have time.
Bottom line is why does LJ just keep cutting and pasting stuff without thinking about it? Pure political BS. She attacks people on the other side for doing this, but she probably does it more than anyone here, especially during the last election.
At least she gives a link, there are several here who don't think it necessary to link to the original when quoting, or to give a link where the info/"facts" posted actually came from.
I am glad to see you actually advocate for links, when I do that I get blasted by some on the right......I'm thinking you probably won't.
So it is true, some liberal groups were targeted.
