The Internal Revenue Service official in charge of the tax-exempt organizations at the time when the unit targeted tea party groups now runs the IRS office responsible for the health care legislation.
Sarah Hall Ingram served as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012. But Ingram has since left that part of the IRS and is now the director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office, the IRS confirmed to ABC News today.
Her successor, Joseph Grant, is taking the fall for misdeeds at the scandal-plagued unit between 2010 and 2012. During at least part of that time, Grant served as deputy commissioner of the tax-exempt unit.
Grant announced today that he would retire June 3, despite being appointed as commissioner of the tax-exempt office May 8, a week ago.
President Obama said Thursday he had no knowledge about a report concerning controversial IRS practices under investigation until news outlets reported on the subject last Friday, and he vowed to "fix" problems plaguing the agency through a comprehensive examination of what happened and how.
"I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the [inspector general] report before the I.G. report had been leaked" to the press, Mr. Obama said Thursday, during a rainy press conference in the White House Rose Garden with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
President Barack Obama dismissed calls for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS scandal, and evaded a question asking if White House officials knew of the IRS targeting of conservative political groups.
“I can assure that I certainly did not know anything about the report before the IG report had been leaked through the press,” he told reporters during a Thursday lunchtime press conference held in the White House Rose Garden.
Obama’s evasion will likely spur public suspicions that White House officials knew about, or even supported, the IRS targeting.
Exactly what do you say that is not standard talking points? Mithros is dead on. Up until the end of GWB's first trime I was pretty durn conservative myself. Actually GWB just finished off my Republicanness. It is not just the RW platform sliding further right all the time it is the craziness, silliness and double standards that just make it impossible for any thinking person to deal with it.
Talking points:
-anytime you lose an elections its impeach impeach impeach
-crazies on the left aren't as bad as crazies on the right
-Bush did a bunch of bad things
-conservatives were silent
-Obama is the most transparent, cleanest president in history
-obamas under a microscope like no other
I can go on and on, but come on, these are the same platitudes we hear every day from the left. All he missed was that conservatives hate Obama because their racist.
Obama isn't going to be impeached. Even the Republicans aren't stupid enough to try to impeach the first black President.
But race has nuthin to do with it....
Seriously, what is it with some of you conservatives? Anytime you lose an
election it's IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH. Yeah there are crazies on the left, but not nearly as many or as bad.
I was a conservative during the Clinton years, and I followed all of the supposed scandals. Then Bush took office and many of the same things happened. Conservatives were silent. Then worse things happened.... Still silence. Obama takes office and its IMPEACH IMPAEACH IMPEACH.
It's just not credible. Like him, hate him, whatever, objectively he's run the cleanest administration in a generation. Most effective, ehhhh. But certainly the cleanest, most scandal free. And yes, that's objective.
The Obama administration has been held under a microscope like no other. You think tea party groups had to provide “too much” information to the IRS. What about Fast and Furious? What about Benghazi? What about every other supposed scandal that starts out by with the House Republicans clambering about impeachable offenses because they suspect that something may exist in some document that they don't yet have even though they have no evidence to suggest that any such thing exists.
This is like saying, if Fenton murdered someone we'll be sure to send him straight to jail. How could he possibly think that he could get away with murder. I know he hasn't turned himself in, but if we can pin this charge on him, then we'll be sure to take him to trial. Granted, we have no evidence that Fenton did anything, but we also don't have all of the information yet.
You were never a Conservative.
Conservatives are principled people who don't change their ideology to suite the weather.
You may have thought you were at one time when in reality you simply misunderstood the definition of the word.
I always call BS on liberals when they tell me they morphed out of Conservatism. For one thing its backwards.
Remember the saying ? If your young and Conservative you have no heart, if your'e old and Liberal you have no brain.
Look Conservatism is a ideology defined by truth, Liberalism is " Truth " defined by ideology, so chances are you were always Liberal because the truth is a constant.......unless of course your'e a Democrat.
I meam your statement that Obama's administration is the " cleanest " ? THAT'S a little frightening.
If someone I knew told me that we would be in hot pursuit of the nearest MRI because my suspicion woulf be a brain tumor has clouded their judgment.
If talking points are true, are they still talking points?
In a nation where we have free speech this should never happen. One of the biggest fears with bloated bureaucracy is that they will use their position to squash or hinder political groups or people they don't like.
My concern is I wonder how high up this goes. The person in charge of trying to disadvantage conservative groups does not need to have his/her position and abuse his/her authority to try and squash groups they don't like. Charges should be made if applicable, trying to disadvantage a group based on their beliefs is a very severe form government oppression in my opinion and should not be tolerated at all. This is what I would expect from more totalitarian nations with less freedom like China, Iran, or Russia. This should absolutely not be happening in the United States where one of our chief principals is freedom of speech and the right to believe what you want without the government impeding upon that.
Talking points:
-anytime you lose an elections its impeach impeach impeach
-crazies on the left aren't as bad as crazies on the right
-Bush did a bunch of bad things
-conservatives were silent
-Obama is the most transparent, cleanest president in history
-obamas under a microscope like no other
I can go on and on, but come on, these are the same platitudes we hear every day from the left. All he missed was that conservatives hate Obama because their racist.
That's not the case - as we’ve already established, a 501(c)(4) can engage in such political activity so long as it is not its primary purpose. Money spent in that manner can be taxed, and too much money spent in that manner can jeopardize the tax exempt status of the organization. Based on that, a 501(c) may choose to establish a Federal PAC, which is treated as a tax-exempt political organization under §527.But in order to engage in electioneering, 501(c)(4)'s had to set up a Federal Separate Segregated Fund (SSF) also known as a connected PAC. The 501(c)(4) could pay administrative costs of SSF through general funds, but the SSF was subject to the Federal Election Campaign Act. As such they had to report donors SSF donors to FEC using Form 3X.
I'm not sure that the Democrats want me writing their talking points.
There are things that I'm not thrilled about with each of these three "scandals". I think security was too lax in Benghazi, there's ostensibly too much of an effort to target leaks, and targeting groups because they have "tea party" in their names is completely unjust and absurd.
But understand, the Republicans do themselves a great disservice with this constant exaggeration and conspiracy theorizing. Obama **MAY** have some blame in all three of these. But it falls far short of intentionally orchestrating it. If you want people to take you seriously you have to be intellectually honest.
These are structural failings. Both the administration as well as the GOP share in the blame. The administration is responsible for those under it. And there were obviously mistakes made. But part of the reason that mistakes were made is that funding for embassy security as well as IRS personnel was significantly cut.
Take the IRS. These aren't evil people, they're your neighbors. They work in an office that's has to process twice as many applications with 30% less people. So they're now working longer hours with a pay freeze processing forms that say that they're the problem.... It's not acceptable, but it's kind of understandable....
That's not the case - as we’ve already established, a 501(c)(4) can engage in such political activity so long as it is not its primary purpose. Money spent in that manner can be taxed, and too much money spent in that manner can jeopardize the tax exempt status of the organization. Therefore, a 501(c) may choose to establish a Federal PAC, which is treated as a tax-exempt political organization under §527.
This SSF will carry the name of the associated 501(c)(4). Both the 501(c)(4) and associated PAC can engage in electioneering communications, and are required by the FEC to disclose the source of the ad, so I might have one "Paid for by Debate Politics" and another "Paid for by Debate Politics PAC." Thus, it's just not true that "in order to engage in electioneering, 501c4's had to set up a connected PAC."
I'm not sure that the Democrats want me
writing their talking points.
There are things that I'm not thrilled about with each of these three "scandals". I think security was too lax in Benghazi, there's ostensibly too much of an effort to target leaks, and targeting groups because they have "tea party" in their names is completely unjust and absurd.
But understand, the Republicans do themselves a great disservice with this constant exaggeration and conspiracy theorizing. Obama **MAY** have some blame in all three of these. But it falls far short of intentionally orchestrating it. If you want people to take you seriously you have to be intellectually honest.
These are structural failings. Both the administration as well as the GOP share in the blame. The administration is responsible for those under it. And there were obviously mistakes made. But part of the reason that mistakes were made is that funding for embassy security as well as IRS personnel was significantly cut.
Take the IRS. These aren't evil people, they're your neighbors. They work in an office that's has to process twice as many applications with 30% less people. So they're now working longer hours with a pay freeze processing forms that say that they're the problem.... It's not acceptable, but it's kind of understandable....
Steven Miller, the acting IRS commissioner, said Friday that last week’s revelation that the IRS gave special scrutiny to Tea Party groups came from a planted question.
Lois Lerner, an IRS official with oversight of tax-exempt groups, disclosed the scrutiny at an American Bankers Association conference last Friday after a question from a lawyer who has served on IRS advisory boards.
Questioned by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), Miller acknowledged that IRS officials were aware that the question would be coming.
Read more: Question that revealed IRS scandal was planted, chief admits - The Hill's On The Money
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
Which part was dishonest? Which part was an ad-hominem argument against Republicans? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem. That's where you say that someone's argument is wrong because they're dumb/stupid/liar/ etc... That is different than saying that someone is being ridiculous because of positions they're taking.The rant you posted earlier was not intellectually honest. That was was my only criticism. Instead of dealing with whats going on now, you resort to the typical blame Bush, republicans are just being rediculous ad hominems.
Notice I'm talking about some conservatives, not all. In particular it's ones like Fenton. If the word some wasn't there, then you'd have a point. The second part is an unbacked assertion, but I think it stands.Seriously, what is it with some of you conservatives? Anytime you lose an election it's IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH. Yeah there are crazies on the left, but not nearly as many or as bad.
Also an unbacked assertion, but I'd stand by it. There were calls to impeach Obama almost before he took office.I was a conservative during the Clinton years, and I followed all of the supposed scandals. Then Bush took office and many of the same things happened. Conservatives were silent. Then worse things happened.... Still silence. Obama takes office and its IMPEACH IMPAEACH IMPEACH.
A third assertion, supported by the next paragraph.It's just not credible. Like him, hate him, whatever, objectively he's run the cleanest administration in a generation. Most effective, ehhhh. But certainly the cleanest, most scandal free. And yes, that's objective.
Supporting evidence for the previous paragraph.The Obama administration has been held under a microscope like no other. You think tea party groups had to provide “too much” information to the IRS. What about Fast and Furious? What about Benghazi? What about every other supposed scandal that starts out by with the House Republicans clambering about impeachable offenses because they suspect that something may exist in some document that they don't yet have even though they have no evidence to suggest that any such thing exists.
An analogy, albeit a moderatly ridiculous one.This is like saying, if Fenton murdered someone we'll be sure to send him straight to jail. How could he possibly think that he could get away with murder. I know he hasn't turned himself in, but if we can pin this charge on him, then we'll be sure to take him to trial. Granted, we have no evidence that Fenton did anything, but we also don't have all of the information yet.
This might be the most unintentionally hilarious post I've read in a long while. Even if the irony is intentional, it's quite believable.You were never a Conservative.
Conservatives are principled people who don't change their ideology to suite the weather.
You may have thought you were at one time when in reality you simply misunderstood the definition of the word.
I always call BS on liberals when they tell me they morphed out of Conservatism. For one thing its backwards.
Remember the saying ? If your young and Conservative you have no heart, if your'e old and Liberal you have no brain.
Look Conservatism is a ideology defined by truth, Liberalism is " Truth " defined by ideology, so chances are you were always Liberal because the truth is a constant.......unless of course your'e a Democrat.
I meam your statement that Obama's administration is the " cleanest " ? THAT'S a little frightening.
If someone I knew told me that we would be in hot pursuit of the nearest MRI because my suspicion woulf be a brain tumor has clouded their judgment.
This might be the most unintentionally hilarious post I've read in a long
while. Even if the irony is intentional, it's quite believable.
You start off by saying that conservatives are principled people who don't change their ideology. In fact, your principles are defined by “Truth”, rather than those terrible people on the other side who define truth with their ideology. Irony overload!!!!!
This means that you know the right answer for everything. You didn't learn it, no one told you it. You just knew. You know the right policy for
every situation. You know the motivation for everyone who disagrees with you. In fact, you even know me.. better than I know myself.
Please, count me as someone who changes my point of view as soon as the wind blows a better one in my path. Yes I'm more than sometimes wrong. It happens often, and about things that I believe with absolute certainty. I don't pretend to have all of the answers and I will believe whatever the evidence tells me as much as the evidence supports for as long as the evidence supports it. There may be a “Truth”, but I'll never know it.. or at least I will never KNOW that I know it.
I don't pretend that something is the “Truth” because I happen to believe it. I'm not wedded to any ideology. Defining liberalism as someone willing to change their mind is essentially saying that liberals think, while conservatives don't need to. This is totally false. Once you move past the Glen Becks, there's a lot of deep honest though in conservative circles. In fact, real conservative thought has dictated the majority of policy from the 80's. (eg Cap and Trade - Conservative; Individual Mandate - Conservative)...
Your position isn't a conservative one, because a true conservative will go where the facts lead.
Been watching this all morning on Fox News... somebody - or a lot of "somebodies" - is/are in deep, deep, deep ****.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?