At last Thursday's press conference, Obama chose his words about the IRS scandal very carefully. "I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report before the IG report had been leaked through the press." Even though he was asked about the overall malfeasance, he specifically said he didn't know about the report. That parsing alone raises questions about the level of candor coming from the White House.
Though the White House counsel’s office was informed of the IRS probe in late April, Obama has insisted that he only learned about the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups through media reports last Friday. But he wouldn’t say definitively that the White House was unaware of the targeting before then.
Next up, the conservative targets.
Issa reached an agreement on Wednesday with Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, to bring groups targeted by the IRS to testify about their experience. That process could start as early as June, according to sources who asked to remain anonymous.
Meanwhile, Issa and Rep. Charles Boustany, the chairman of the Ways and Means oversight subcommittee, said panel staffers have begun privately interviewing IRS employees both in Washington and the Cincinnati field office where the misconduct originated — a process that will continue in the coming weeks.
Yes, I'm aware of that and posted this (with links) a few times.They do not have to be approved... they can simply self declare.
Or do you stipulate these are opinions and 'left leaning' organizations would benefit similarly? If yes, then in this case why the disparity in the numbers who were subjected to 'extra scrutiny' and time for approval? (see IG report linked previously)1.The reason they petition the IRS is because they are questionable to achieve 501(c)(4) status because of their political activity.
2.They want the 501(c)(4) status as they would not have to disclose donors with this status....
3. these two factors (borderline qualification; blind donors) are the very reason they got extra scrutiny.
4. The right wing groups got most of it, because the Tea Party organizations were all being formed in the time frame.
'Logical sense' does not make it a fact...Consider if on merely self declared and participated in whatever for ~3 years with no review/approval THEN were rejected (legitimately or not). How difficult would the 'unwinding' of their fiscal activities three years down the road? Could this be a reason for their desire to get c4 status first? And again, based on this wouldn't this be prudent for organizations of ANY leaning?This all makes logical sense as being benign.
No, the law allows them to self declare. They do not need approval. Some see
it prudent to get a determination letter (the IRS agreeing they qualify) because their qualifications are questionable.
501(c)4 vs 501(c)3 vs 527
Social Welfare Organizations
there isn't really a strategic abuse of power
Culpability. They're protecting those above them by attempting to muddy the waters to avoid any guilt at all. It's the administrative equivalent of, "I dunno. **** happens." Or, if you like, "What difference does it make?" We're just trying to make certain it never happens again. Until it does, after which we'll make sure it never, ever happens again. Until it does...But hey, we got away with it, didn't we? And nobody lost their job, benefits, or went to jail. We win, we win! **** off, Tea Party.exactly what is the irs working so hard to suppress?
Culpability. They're protecting those above them by attempting to muddy the waters to avoid any guilt at all. It's the administrative equivalent of, "I dunno. **** happens." Or, if you like, "What difference does it make?" We're just trying to make certain it never happens again. Until it does, after which we'll make sure it never, ever happens again. Until it does...But hey, we got away with it, didn't we? And nobody lost their job, benefits, or went to jail. We win, we win! **** off, Tea Party.
how could a humble dp poster like the prof know 15 months ago and not the president?
IRS won't move tax status of Richmond tea party - WeeklyStandard
IRS Battling Tea Party Groups Over Tax-Exempt Status - HuffPo
why are shulman, miller and lerner lying?
Again, you do not need to apply to be a 501(c)(4), you declare yourself one. What most of these organizations sought was a determination letter given that their very nature put them in borderline status. They were trying to use 501(c)(4) status for their benefit (you don't have to disclose donors), though 501(c)(4) was not designed for political organizations. Of course the IRS is going to pause and challenge the application: its borderline, at best. Most of the organizations should have been 527s.
Even the IRS isn't defending the IRS. It takes an incredible degree of partisanship to call this nothing.It is much to do about nothing. I actually have a decent understanding of what is happening here and most do not. It is actually quite comical how politicians and their constituencies are falling all over themselves crying for jail time, firings, impeachment, etc. When this all shakes out, people are going to feel quite foolish and those that tried to tell us how this was the greatest scandal since (well, the last greatest scandal) are going to look quite foolish.
The emperor has no clothes. The Cons will wish they spent this time and attention on Benghazi (or better yet, the AP scandal).
link please, thank youYou sir, are closer to the truth then all but a few people on this board..... except, at the end of the day, there isn't really a strategic abuse of power; its lower level people that took short-cuts to get the job done.
Thanks for illustrating point... people are making a mountain out of a molehill. There really is nothing here other than a bunch of bureaucrats using a short-cut to get their jobs done expediently because they are understaffed. The Cons have conjured up most of this hysteria because they need Obama to fail... The election is over; the economy seems to be working in his favor and the Cons have no original ideas or a political agenda.
When this all shakes out, those that are honest with themselves are going to feel foolish to buying into an hysteria based on what they think might have gone wrong (what I hope went wrong) ahead of actual facts.
link please, thank you
whats troubling is that at every turn Obama and his cabinet have no clue what it going on until the media reports it. or so the story goes..
NEVER MIND the actual scandal
Thanks for illustrating point... people are making a mountain out of a molehill. There really is nothing here other than a bunch of bureaucrats using a short-cut to get their jobs done expediently because they are understaffed. The Cons have conjured up most of this hysteria because they need Obama to fail... The election is over; the economy seems to be working in his favor and the Cons have no original ideas or a political agenda.
When this all shakes out, those that are honest with themselves are going to feel foolish to buying into an hysteria based on what they think might have gone wrong (what I hope went wrong) ahead of actual facts.
Why did the IRS only go after Conservative orgs, then?
Our media is terrible. They print the sensational headline but never bother to explain the much less explosive reality.
There's no indication that only conservative groups were investigated. There's not even evidence that conservative groups faced more scrutiny than liberal groups. In fact, the only group which had it's status refused was a charter of a previously approved Democratic leaning organization. Not only was it rejected, but the entire national group lost it's 501c4 status..
What we know is that the words Tea Party, and Patriot were used as part of the process to identify potentially political groups. We also know that four times as many conservative groups were approved than liberal groups. This was politically insensitive, but those keywords *should* be flags.
i have a few question of you i would like to ask sense you claim your so well informed.
how many tea part groups received the C4 status between 2009 and 2011?
tell me how many progressive groups received their C4 status during the same time?
If your informed that you false claim you are you should be able to answer that, and if you dont know how can you possibly make the claims you are making
Our media is (sic) terrible
There's no indication that only conservative groups were investigated
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?