WaPo: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 2012 election

[Bang]

From the CNN article: "While Judicial Watch received continued audit notices, the IRS was pressured by prominent Democrats. Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, top Democrat on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, on February 2, 1999, wrote questioning whether the watchdog group was entitled to a tax exemption. Rangel's letter noted complaints from Rep. Martin Frost of Texas, a member of the Democratic leadership who had received a constituent complaint about Judicial Watch solicitations."

OPPORTUNITY KNOCKS!

Blame it ALL on Rangel and roll his fat ass out and straight to jail.

Everybody's happy!

~Bang

[twa]

As for me, I don't like the prohibition, however you'd never find me endorsing a candidate from the pulpit or in an official capacity. Not because I agree with the forced prohibition, but because I have learned my lesson about choosing between Nero or Domitian.

LOL.. if ya lay with dogs ya get fleas

I agree

'

[AsburySkinsFan]

LOL.. if ya lay with dogs ya get fleas

I agree

'

Sumthin' like that. Billy Graham learned that after getting burned by Nixon, unfortunately his son has chosen to not follow his father's path.

[JimboDaMan]

But I've seen laws like that ("may not advocate for candidates or parties") before. For other groups. And what t means is that you can't say that Candidate X is perfect, but you can say that Candidate Y is Satan.

That's one of the reasons we have so many negative campaign ads. Because groups can't advocate FOR, but the can advocate AGAINST.

And, isn't that what the Swift Boaters did?

Of course it was what they did. I brought them up because somebody was pretending the rules were simple when in fact their intent is routinely flouted.

W respect to the original topic, I'd be interested to know a bit more about the circumstances. Like, was there a whole list of words that might trigger increased scrutiny, or were "patriot" and "tea party" the only ones given special attention? I have a problem with it either way, but it still makes a difference. Also I'd be interested to know if every "patriot" and "tea party" application got the business, or were those words just one factor and an application didn't get further review unless there were other red flags? In which case I might not have a problem at all. All depends on the circumstances.

[chipwhich]

Of course it was what they did. I brought them up because somebody was pretending the rules were simple when in fact their intent is routinely flouted.

By both parties which is hard for the tailgate regulars to get

W respect to the original topic, I'd be interested to know a bit more about the circumstances. Like, was there a whole list of words that might trigger increased scrutiny, or were "patriot" and "tea party" the only ones given special attention? I have a problem with it either way, but it still makes a difference. Also I'd be interested to know if every "patriot" and "tea party" application got the business, or were those words just one factor and an application didn't get further review unless there were other red flags? In which case I might not have a problem at all. All depends on the circumstances.

I bet you would, as long as it lends itself to your beliefs

[twa]

By both parties which is hard for the tailgate regulars to get

I bet you would, as long as it lends itself to your beliefs

you mean like this?

http://www.willisms.com/archives/2013/03/data_visualizat.html

[aREDSKIN]

I suspect many will summarily dismiss it but here's a concise write-up as to what info is available right now. As with all info take it for what it's worth.

"Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's oversight subcommittee, said the report "raises serious questions as to who at IRS, Treasury and in the administration knew about this, why this practice was allowed to continue for as long as it did, and how widespread it was."

"This timeline reveals at least two extremely unethical actions by the IRS. One, as early as 2010, they targeted groups for political purposes. Two, they willfully and knowingly lied to Congress for years despite being aware that Congress was investigating this practice," Boustany said."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/12/irs-knew-tea-party-targeted-in-2011/#ixzz2T4j23Bjm

[JimboDaMan]

I bet you would, as long as it lends itself to your beliefs

Seriously? I ask for more information and you accuse me of only wanting to know facts that back up my beliefs? You, who can't possibly know what the motivation was so you apparently have invented one according to your beliefs and have no interest in learning anything new that might conflict with your already closed mind? Are you addressing the bathroom mirror?

Do you really see no value in finding out what is going on? IMO there is a huge difference between profiling and deliberate harrassment. It is the difference between TSA agents hassling the Goldstein family because they don't like Jews, and singling out for additional scrutiny a young ME male wearing a Yassar Arafat t-shirt. Both are wrong, but my course of correction differs significantly between the two.

<edit> And twa is just entertaining, posting a space-gobbling multicolor graphic that has absolutely zero to do with the OP. I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked.

[chipwhich]

Do you really see no value in finding out what is going on?

I sure do, although it is obvious in all of your posts that you are strictly targeting the R's and oblivious to the concept as a WHOLE that both sides do bad things and the worst thing is when one government agency targets one political party and not the other.

So yeah, I want to know what's going on. If I had it my way I would shut the whole thing down so D's and R's wouldn't get a tax advantage. What I wouldn't have done is brought up the Swift Boat example as a defense to what the IRS did. Both sides do it...get it?

We will never find out who ordered the R side to get extra scrutiny. A head may roll, but the truth will never be known.

[JimboDaMan]

You claimed the laws in this area were simple. I brought up Swift Boat as an obvious example of flouting that simple rule. Not to pick on R's or D's, but to reference a high-profile example that NOBODY can deny pushed a specific candidate yet clearly operated within those "simple" rules. I'd use an example from the D side of the house but, while lesser examples abound, honestly I can't think of anything else quite that egregious by either side.

[chipwhich]

You claimed the laws in this area were simple. I brought up Swift Boat as an obvious example of flouting that simple rule. Not to pick on R's or D's, but to reference a high-profile example that NOBODY can deny pushed a specific candidate yet clearly operated within those "simple" rules. I'd use an example from the D side of the house but, while lesser examples abound, honestly I can't think of anything else quite that egregious by either side.

Oh, I know you can't give a D example. Bipartisanship isn't cool.

The laws are simple, and the IRS has a means to deal with cheaters if and when they exist.

What the OP is about is essentially like saying they targeted everyone with a muslim name and gave returns with muslim like names extra scrutiny. Or hispanic names, or whatever.

They specifically targeted a group, not because there was wrongdoing.

Surely you get that. Surely your response wouldn't be Swift Boat.

[IHOPSkins]

If true..... the whistle blowers should not be targeted for disciplinary action

Operation Smear Benghazi Whistleblowers

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/08/operation_smear_benghazi_whistleblowers_118312.html

They should all be promoted

Then maybe conservatives would have less reason to fear an easily manipulated government

[Burgold]

What bothers me in a thread like this is we've become so accustomed to partisan sniping and baseless accusations or accusations purely for partisan gain that when something arises that actually may stink we fall back on old patterns.

This may be something that is really rotten. We don't know yet, but it could be. If it is, then we should oppose it and demand better. We certainly should not scream the (other guys do it too). That's irrelevent.

If the D's do something terrible we should condemn it. If the R's do something terrible we should condemn it. If the Libertarians or greenies do something terrible we should condemn it too.

We should be honest enough to hold accountable not just our neighbors but the mess in our own houses and yards too.

[AsburySkinsFan]

If true..... the whistle blowers should not be targeted for disciplinary action

Operation Smear Benghazi Whistleblowers

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/08/operation_smear_benghazi_whistleblowers_118312.html

They should all be promoted

Then maybe conservatives would have less reason to fear an easily manipulated government

And maybe a source that wasn't completely biased would make your point more believable.

It's on. As the White House grapples with a growing backlash over its Libya lies and lapses, President Obama's apologists are gearing up for battle.

Faux News has done serious damage to the way we think about news. They started out by illustrating that there is bias in journalism, but over the years it has devolved into an embrace of bias as legitimate and truthful where we each get to pick our truth.

Seriously, for all of the hatred of Postmodernism from Conservatives it seems to have been wholly embraced.

Off Topic:

BTW about the use of Mark 3:27 in your signature to endorse guns has got to be one of the most disgusting proof-texting abuses of scripture I've seen in a very long time. I simply want to gag, and whoever taught should step away from preaching and teaching the Bible until they can learn how to do with integrity. That passage has NOTHING at all to do with guns or gun ownership or gun control or the violent defense of a home. To suggest otherwise is just ignorant.

This is why we read and learn from scripture in context, rather than raping the Bible to get what we want from it, leaving it bruised and battered on the floor.

Mark 3:21-30 When his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were saying, "He has gone out of his mind." 22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, "He has Beelzebul, and by the ruler of the demons he casts out demons." 23 And he called them to him, and spoke to them in parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but his end has come. 27 But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his property without first tying up the strong man; then indeed the house can be plundered. 28 "Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"-- 30 for they had said, "He has an unclean spirit."

---------- Post added May-12th-2013 at 11:09 AM ----------

What bothers me in a thread like this is we've become so accustomed to partisan sniping and baseless accusations or accusations purely for partisan gain that when something arises that actually may stink we fall back on old patterns.

This may be something that is really rotten. We don't know yet, but it could be. If it is, then we should oppose it and demand better. We certainly should not scream the (other guys do it too). That's irrelevent.

If the D's do something terrible we should condemn it. If the R's do something terrible we should condemn it. If the Libertarians or greenies do something terrible we should condemn it too.

We should be honest enough to hold accountable not just our neighbors but the mess in our own houses and yards too.

Totally agree, and we should allow investigations to take place, and be responsible by refusing to buy into or spread baseless conspiracies or accusations.

[Larry]

What bothers me in a thread like this is we've become so accustomed to partisan sniping and baseless accusations or accusations purely for partisan gain that when something arises that actually may stink we fall back on old patterns.

This may be something that is really rotten. We don't know yet, but it could be. If it is, then we should oppose it and demand better. We certainly should not scream the (other guys do it too). That's irrelevent.

Agree.

This might be a bunch of conservative tax cheats crying persecution.

But it might be an enemies-list-level abuse of power, too.

We've seen both. And I could believe either of them.

(And I agree with Predicto, I think it was. The R's should drop Benghazi, and latch onto this issue. They've been after Benghazi for years, (Or at least it seems like it), they haven't found a thing, they can't even present a coherent claim about what they're complaining about. But, having the IRS harass political opponents? That, the voters can understand, and believe, and get outraged about.)

[LadySkinsFan]

This use of the IRS was wrong and anyone involved in it should be fired and prosecuted if it's against the law. Are there laws against using Federal agencies for political purposes?

[IHOPSkins]

And maybe a source that wasn't completely biased

So you agree that there is Bias in the media....We just need to work on who else

about the use of Mark 3:27 in your signature to endorse guns has got to be one of the most disgusting proof-texting abuses of scripture I've seen in a very long time. I simply want to gag,

This is why we read and learn from scripture in context, rather than raping the Bible to get what we want from it, leaving it bruised and battered on the floor.

OFF Topic response for those that throw out the word Rape

"And He said to them, "When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?"

So they said, "Nothing."

Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'And He was numbered with the transgressors.' For the things concerning Me have an end."

So they said, "Lord, look, here are two swords."

And He said to them, "It is enough." " (Luke 22:35-38, NKJV)

Comment from the website.....

But when Jesus was no longer with them, their journey would not be temporary. They would need certain provisions, including a knife for preparation of food, cutting wood for fuel, and possibly to

fend off robbers

http://www.biblestudy.org/question/why-did-jesus-tell-disciples-to-buy-swords.html

Looks like JESUS endorses "Gun" purchases.

You can either agree...or disagree

Remaining ignorant is like Raping your own mind

Ending off topic post

[AsburySkinsFan]

OFF Topic response for those that throw out the word Rape

Everything you typed following that statement is a load of crap and an argument from silence, Jesus made Peter drop the sword he carried that night as he healed the man Peter tried to kill. The early church were pacifists.

That's the last I'll say on that subject.

[JimboDaMan]

Oh, I know you can't give a D example. Bipartisanship isn't cool.

The laws are simple, and the IRS has a means to deal with cheaters if and when they exist.

First the IRS must find those cheaters. What is so for unresolved is whether this problem is a misguided attempt to identify tax cheats, or somthing much worse. We do not have that information yet. I think we should find out, don't you?

What the OP is about is essentially like saying they targeted everyone with a muslim name and gave returns with muslim like names extra scrutiny. Or hispanic names, or whatever.

Well, they apparently didn't target "conservative" or "Republican", so I'm not so sure that broad a brush was used. And there was a list of terms used of which "patriot" and "tea party" were only two items on the list. And three quarters of the groups selected for scrutiny were NOT "patriot" or "tea party" groups. We don't know what else was on the list, and I'm not aware of other groups who were selected claming to have been unjustly scrutinized. Nor do we know how many if any "tea party" applications were not selected for scrutiny.

I would like to know those things, so I know who it was and what they did.

They specifically targeted a group, not because there was wrongdoing.

No, they didn't. Since it was a list, they apparently targeted multiple groups, not just the one you care about. And you have no proof that it wasn't to identify wrongdoers. I don't have any either. But I'd like to find out.

Surely you get that. Surely your response wouldn't be Swift Boat.

Your repetition on that will gain you nothing.

[IHOPSkins]

PRO-ISRAEL GROUP SUED IRS CLAIMING TARGETING PRACTICE

While they are at it, the committee might want to ask the IRS whether their list of targets extended beyond political party discrimination. There is evidence the IRS also targeted pro-Israel groups whose positions were potentially inconsistent with the administration’s.

For example, in 2010, the passionately pro-Israel organization Z STREET filed a lawsuit against the IRS, claiming it had been told by an IRS agent that because the organization was “connected to Israel,” its application for tax-exempt status would receive additional scrutiny. This admission was made in response to a query about the lengthy reveiw of Z STREET’s tax exempt status application.

In addition, the IRS agent told a Z STREET representative that the applications of some of those Israel-related organizations have been assigned to

“a special unit in the D.C. office to determine whether the organization’s activities contradict the Administration’s public policies.”

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/irs-punished-conservative-non-profits-perhaps-also-pro-israel-groups/2013/05/11/

"Special Unit"

Sounds like a President Clinton Operation

[chipwhich]

Agree.

This might be a bunch of conservative tax cheats crying persecution.

:doh:

Please actually read the article and see what was done.

I knew the tailgate was biased but jeez.

---------- Post added May-12th-2013 at 12:31 PM ----------

First the IRS must find those cheaters. What is so for unresolved is whether this problem is a misguided attempt to identify tax cheats, or somthing much worse. We do not have that information yet. I think we should find out, don't you?

DID YOU READ THE ARTICLE AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY WERE DOING? :doh:

Well, they apparently didn't target "conservative" or "Republican", so I'm not so sure that broad a brush was used. And there was a list of terms used of which "patriot" and "tea party" were only two items on the list. And three quarters of the groups selected for scrutiny were NOT "patriot" or "tea party" groups. We don't know what else was on the list, and I'm not aware of other groups who were selected claming to have been unjustly scrutinized. Nor do we know how many if any "tea party" applications were not selected for scrutiny.

Please go back and read top to bottom.

I would like to know those things, so I know who it was and what they did.

That's the point.

No, they didn't. Since it was a list, they apparently targeted multiple groups, not just the one you care about. And you have no proof that it wasn't to identify wrongdoers. I don't have any either. But I'd like to find out.

THEY WERE APPLYING FOR TAX EXEMPT STATUS. THAT ISN"T WRONGDOING.

Sorry for the all caps, but missing the obvious....

Your repetition on that will gain you nothing.

Was the swift boat tax exempt group charged of a crime?

[JimboDaMan]

DID YOU READ THE ARTICLE AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY WERE DOING? :doh:

I've read all I can find on this subject. And I actually understand what I've read. You, on the other hand, clearly do not.

<edit> Let me try to make this clearer. What if we find out that there were 2000 patriot and tea party applications submitted. In that case those words were used inappropriately as a filter, but other criteria were deciding factors since only 5% of that group was selected for scrutiny.

What if we found out that the word "progressive" was also on the list? In that case the group in question is not "conservatives" but "political organizations".

In either case above, targeting the words "patriot" and "tea party" is still wrong. But it's a different kind of wrong. Let's find out what was going on.

Oh, one more thing:

THEY WERE APPLYING FOR TAX EXEMPT STATUS. THAT ISN"T WRONGDOING.

No one said it was. Not a single application was denied. According to the IRS, they were LOOKING for wrongdoing. When they didn't find it, they approved the application.

That might or might not be the truth. Let's find out.

[chipwhich]

<edit> Let me try to make this clearer. What if we find out that there were 2000 patriot and tea party applications submitted. In that case those words were used inappropriately as a filter, but other criteria were deciding factors since only 5% of that group was selected for scrutiny.

Jimbo, no offense but here is the title of the article:

IRS admits targeting conservatives for tax scrutiny in 2012 election

Here is another snippet:

Asked about reports that the IRS unfairly targeted the tax-exempt status of conservative groups during the 2012 election, White House press secretary Jay Carney said the actions were inappropriate.

You made this statement...

Well, they apparently didn't target "conservative" or "Republican", so I'm not so sure that broad a brush was used

Well they even admitted as such.

And to try to hide behind the other keywords that weren't released is just silly. If the IRS had keywords that would have covered their ass, they wouldn't be coming out and apologizing.

IRS admits wrongdoing of targeting conservative groups. That's all that needs to be said.

Burgold gets it.

[JimboDaMan]

Jimbo, no offense but here is the title of the article:

Here is another snippet:

You made this statement...

Well they even admitted as such.

And to try to hide behind the other keywords that weren't released is just silly. If the IRS had keywords that would have covered their ass, they wouldn't be coming out and apologizing.

IRS admits wrongdoing of targeting conservative groups. That's all that needs to be said.

Burgold gets it.

OK, let's start with a side issue that you just made into a centerpiece. Find in the article where the IRS admitted targetting conservative groups in general. You won't find it, because it isn't there, because that at least is one transgression the IRS did NOT commit. I don't care what some headline-writing intern wrote on the website, think for yourself for a minute. Read the article and find where the IRS admitted selecting applications that said "conservative" or "Republican". You won't find it because it didn't happen. The issue is limited to those applications using the words "patriot" and "tea party". They didn't target any group with that broad a brush. One of those life lessons - it didn't happen, even if you read it on the Internet. Headlines are not facts.

As for the rest of it, now you are just making things up. You have no idea what the IRS would or would not do. Nor do you appear to have any interest in finding out anything more because you have found a story line pleasing to you. No additional facts required.

But I require additional facts. Not to justify what they did, because I've stated repeatedly what they did was wrong. But what they did could be "inappropriate" wrong - like profiling - or could be "sinister" wrong - like political harrassment. It makes a difference, both in figuring out how to deal with the wrongdoers and how to prevent a recurrence.

[chipwhich]

OK, let's start with a side issue that you just made into a centerpiece. Find in the article where the IRS admitted targetting conservative groups in general.

What are they apologizing for? Are you really that obtuse?

It's pretty sad state of affairs when your political bias blinds you from an honest discussion.