IRSS (Internal Revenue Schutzstaffel) Gruppen news summary

LadyJazzer wrote:

IRS Inspector General, Darrell Issa Communicated Multiple Times In 2012

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.....

If the GOP had any reason to use any shattering information like this for a political advantage... they would have released the information BEFORE THE ELECTION in 2012.

And let's parse Menendez's question. The Treasury IG's were not performing a "investigation" they were performing an audit. Since the release of the TIGTA a few weeks ago, the Treasury IG department now have enough information to warrant an investigation, which is currently in progress. You would know this if you had been actually watching the various committee meetings on Monday and Tuesday of this past week., instead of getting your filtered and out of context from Huffington Post.

Let's review who REALLY knew what was going on in the IRS EO division and when. Lois Lerner knew. Miller knew. Schulman knew... and the Treasury department knew. All of these people had intimate knowledge of the targeting that taking place in the EO... some as far back as two years ago before making it known to members of Congress. Congress found out the details of the targeting when the TIGTA audit was recently released.

The IRS in fact repeatedly reported that no such targeting was happening. Then on May 10th of this year Lois Lerner reveal some details, for the first time, in response to a question at a public event she was talking about. As it turns out, that question was actually planted in the audience in an attempt to get ahead of Congress and the press with this information. Supposedly that's when Obama and his White house staff first learned about it. From news reports.

We now know that members of Obama's administration already knew of the audit and and what the audit had recovered. Jay Carney denied that point and just yesterday walk that back and had to admit the truth that administration officials knew of the contents of the TIGTA audit before May 10th, 2013.

Of course Congress and the TIGTA office communicated in 2012. It was Congress that requested that TIGTA look into allegations that there was targeting of certain groups going on in the EO.

You are conflating requests for an audit to TIGTA with actual knowledge of the results. That's not surprising since you are getting your filtered and out of context information from Huffington Post.

Here is a timeline of events regarding the IRS scandal:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/irs-investigation-timeline-who-knew-when/

From it we see that Lois Lerner of the IRS learned of the discriminatory practices in June, 2011 and stops the practice of questioning group's political motives in Feb, 2012.

The head of the IRS, Douglas Shulman, learns of the discriminatory practices in May, 2012.


In the meantime, Darrell Issa has heard reports from several organizations that they were receiving very detailed questionnaires from the IRS and sent a letter to Russell George (the Inspector General for Tax Administration) on June 28, 2012 asking about it.

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

On July 11, 2012 Issa received a reply from George. The reply was short and stated nothing specific other than they will 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 even though the IRS already knew about the discriminatory practices for several months, I see nothing which shows that Issa was told about it.


LJ's link simply says this:

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.

That is consistent with what I just posted, and again it shows nothing to support that Issa was being given any details from the IRS about the discriminatory practices. From all I can see, the "communications" were just about letting Issa know that they were looking into it.

: More liberal talking points debunked.

Maybe people here need to get a couple sources before they cut and paste?

Do you honestly think a media whore like Issa wouldn't have gone public with a story that says the IRS went after conservative groups? He would have been as happy as Gallagher at a farmer's market.

^^^^ This from no link Fred?!?!

Soulshiner wrote: ^^^^ This from no link Fred?!?!

I don't fault anyone for clipping and pasting and linking to material and then interpreting what they just read, much of what we absorb is subjective... unfortunately most of history is subjective and facts are almost always filtered through a filter of some sort. But I don't agree with referring to those subjective facts without supplying the original material so other reader can come to their own opinions.

The internet is both a wonderful place and a monster in waiting. But it's there and its rather easy to get the information from point A to point B.

Soulshiner wrote: ^^^^ This from no link Fred?!?!

I am just spouting off biased opinion, like so many of the sources used by others here. Some unpaid 20something slanted blogger on Huffington Post is not a credible source.

Here's the solution if you're a teabagger...Your very own "ConservoTax"...

ConservoTax

Groups Targeted by I.R.S. Tested Rules on Politics

When CVFC, a conservative veterans’ group in California, applied for tax-exempt status with the Internal Revenue Service, its biggest expenditure that year was several thousand dollars in radio ads backing a Republican candidate for Congress.

The Wetumpka Tea Party, from Alabama, sponsored training for a get-out-the-vote initiative dedicated to the “defeat of President Barack Obama” while the I.R.S. was weighing its application. And the head of the Ohio Liberty Coalition, whose application languished with the I.R.S. for more than two years, sent out e-mails to members about Mitt Romney campaign events and organized members to distribute Mr. Romney’s presidential campaign literature.

Representatives of these organizations have cried foul in recent weeks about their treatment by the I.R.S., saying they were among dozens of conservative groups unfairly targeted by the agency, harassed with inappropriate questionnaires and put off for months or years as the agency delayed decisions on their applications.

But a close examination of these groups and others reveals an array of election activities that tax experts and former I.R.S. officials said would provide a legitimate basis for flagging them for closer review.

“Money is not the only thing that matters,” said Donald B. Tobin, a former lawyer with the Justice Department’s tax division who is a law professor at Ohio State University. “While some of the I.R.S. questions may have been overbroad, you can look at some of these groups and understand why these questions were being asked.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/us/po ... l?hp&_r=3&

It's obvious that using "key words" like "patriot", "liberty", "9-12" etc., was an inappropriate and stupid way to go about the selection process; and no matter how much FauxNews and the NeoCons try to gen up an outrage-of-the-day, there's nothing that points back to the WhiteHouse as the source of the practice.

On the OTHER HAND, it's obvious that when the floodgates opened, (courtesy of the "Citizens United" ruling), the (c)4's that jumped in were interested in one thing: getting a tax-free, taxpayer-supported license to conduct political activities under the radar, hiding their donors, and pushing the law over the line. I hope the flood of "dark money" groups keeps getting closer scrutiny... It's for sure I don't want MY tax dollars going to support them.

I hope this flap doesn't stop the IRS from doing its job...They need to keep reviewing these groups, (both conservative AND liberal), and make sure that their activities do not violate the rules.

LadyJazzer wrote:

Groups Targeted by I.R.S. Tested Rules on Politics

When CVFC, a conservative veterans’ group in California, applied for tax-exempt status with the Internal Revenue Service, its biggest expenditure that year was several thousand dollars in radio ads backing a Republican candidate for Congress.

The Wetumpka Tea Party, from Alabama, sponsored training for a get-out-the-vote initiative dedicated to the “defeat of President Barack Obama” while the I.R.S. was weighing its application. And the head of the Ohio Liberty Coalition, whose application languished with the I.R.S. for more than two years, sent out e-mails to members about Mitt Romney campaign events and organized members to distribute Mr. Romney’s presidential campaign literature.

Representatives of these organizations have cried foul in recent weeks about their treatment by the I.R.S., saying they were among dozens of conservative groups unfairly targeted by the agency, harassed with inappropriate questionnaires and put off for months or years as the agency delayed decisions on their applications.

But a close examination of these groups and others reveals an array of election activities that tax experts and former I.R.S. officials said would provide a legitimate basis for flagging them for closer review.

“Money is not the only thing that matters,” said Donald B. Tobin, a former lawyer with the Justice Department’s tax division who is a law professor at Ohio State University. “While some of the I.R.S. questions may have been overbroad, you can look at some of these groups and understand why these questions were being asked.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/us/po ... l?hp&_r=3&

It's obvious that using "key words" like "patriot", "liberty", "9-12" etc., was an inappropriate and stupid way to go about the selection process; and no matter how much FauxNews and the NeoCons try to gen up an outrage-of-the-day, there's nothing that points back to the WhiteHouse as the source of the practice.

On the OTHER HAND, it's obvious that when the floodgates opened, (courtesy of the "Citizens United" ruling), the (c)4's that jumped in were interested in one thing: getting a tax-free, taxpayer-supported license to conduct political activities under the radar, hiding their donors, and pushing the law over the line.

I hope this flap doesn't stop the IRS from doing its job...They need to keep reviewing these groups, (both conservative AND liberal), and make sure that their activities do not violate the rules.

I'm interested in you showing us 75 liberal groups who applied for 501(c)4 status since the passage of Citizen's United who have been denied that status OR are still languishing on some desk at the IRS for the last 2 to 3 years.

Go ahead... I'll wait.

I can't find any numbers on how many conservative groups have filed for 501(c)(4) status vs how many liberal groups have applied. Without those numbers how do we know that a greater percentage of conservative groups are still waiting? We also don't know if a greater percentage of conservative groups are trying to use the new ruling to qualify new groups for this status who don't meet the criteria. So many unanswered questions, I hope some INDEPENDENT group investigates and sorts it all out.