Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

WTF · 05-17-2013, 06:48 AM

I believe nobody should claim that status if they act in a political was....and how the statue was written, they should not.

Whirlaway · 05-17-2013, 06:55 AM

You might be right; but that doesn't mean that ONLY Conservatives should be targeted !

The IRS shouldn't be applying different review criteria to any single group that applies.

WTF · 05-17-2013, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

You might be right; but that doesn't mean that ONLY Conservatives should be targeted !

The IRS shouldn't be applying different review criteria to any single group that applies.

On this we agree.

I still would like to wait and see if any other groups were targeted. For example....if 300 groups applied and 299 of them were Tea Party group during that time frame, then it would stand to reason that the majority of groups targeted were Tea Party groups. I would like to see the actual numbers in that time frame.

Whirlaway · 05-17-2013, 07:11 AM

I take the IRS apology as the admission that they specifically targeted conservative/patriotic groups.....any investigation is likely to get worse for Obama in this respect, not better......

It was likely more coordinated, broader, and specifically intended to thwart conservatives in the run up to the 2012 elections !

WTF · 05-17-2013, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I take the IRS apology as the admission that they specifically targeted conservative/patriotic groups.....any investigation is likely to get worse for Obama in this respect, not better......

It was likely more coordinated, broader, and specifically intended to thwart conservatives in the run up to the 2012 elections !

I want to see the numbers....I could care less where it leads. The only thing right now are the numbers. How many groups applied in this time frame? How many groups were looked into ? AND what was the ratio of each group. Get t5he answer to those questions and go from there . If the ratio are close to the same, then there is no story.

Like I said though...if 299 out of 300 that applied were Tea Party groups....don't hide that fact for right wing political gain.

Whirlaway · 05-17-2013, 07:19 AM

Well, do you want an honest accounting of the "the numbers" ???

If so, it will require an independent prosecutor IMO.......

Is that something you would support ?

If not, how do you get to the "honest numbers" ????

Whirlaway · 05-17-2013, 07:22 AM

And the number count is a side step if the IRS applied different criteria....

Which the IRS has already admitted to.

And I don't think the IRS problem was just with 501-4-C groups; but also included 501-C-3 applications that had NOTHING to do with political activity !

WTF · 05-17-2013, 07:37 AM

I do not want a witch hunt. I do not want Ken Starr starting withe Whitewater and then going after a blowjob.

I want the numbers. That does not need a SP. But is they want to limit the SP to the numbers...ok. Call in an apolitical 12 grade math major...adding up the number of groups that applied for 5014c status in that time frame can not be that difficult. Nor can counting the number who were reviewed. Nor can finding out if the ratio are close.

That is pretty simple math.

But I suspect you want a witch hunt.

I want the numbers...if they don't add up, I want those responsible fired. Case closed.

Whirlaway · 05-17-2013, 08:20 AM

To get at the honest numbers will take an investigator(s) with subpoena powers and the power to indict................

Sounds like a special prosecutor to me.....................

I want those responsible to do jail time if there were criminal acts..........being fired, so they can be re-hired, is just an incentive for them to not cooperate and walk away with a cushy job in a Democrat law firm.....................

Why would you take jail time off the table ? That is just an open door to the guilty to shred documents, shut up, and NOT cooperate...

WTF · 05-17-2013, 10:08 AM

I'm not a lawyer...but I would need to see what law was broken before sending anyone to jail.

LexusLover · 05-17-2013, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTF

I'm not a lawyer...but I would need to see what law was broken before sending anyone to jail.

... or what laws will be broken in the process of the special counsel's investigation.

As for "numbers" .... who has the raw data from which the numbers are extracted? I've been under the impression that it was BEING DONE ... the "investigation" would be focused on:

"who" knew it and said they didn't and

"who" authorized it to be done in the first place and

"who" didn't stop it when they knew it was being done.

One doesn't need "numbers" for that ...

.. just names, memoes, letters, phone, email, and text messages.

Like Watergate: If one lies under oath ... they go to jail. If one "covers up" the truth by destroying, secreting, and/or refusing to disclose when commanded to do so ... they go to jail. If one violates Federal law by discrimination politically in processing applications at the IRS ... they go to jail. .............. after "due process" of course!!!!

Are you getting ready to send someone to jail?

WTF · 05-17-2013, 11:04 AM

They go yo jail after due process! Lol. How about maybe they walk free if the 'number' prove them innocent? You can't say it is due process if you already have your mind made up. That is why the numbrrs are so important, that is why I want to see them.

Sidewinder · 05-17-2013, 11:08 AM

Here is a partial answer to your question about numbers.

CJ7 · 05-17-2013, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

To get at the honest numbers will take an investigator(s) with subpoena powers and the power to indict................

Sounds like a special prosecutor to me.....................

I want those responsible to do jail time if there were criminal acts..........being fired, so they can be re-hired, is just an incentive for them to not cooperate and walk away with a cushy job in a Democrat law firm.....................

Why would you take jail time off the table ? That is just an open door to the guilty to shred documents, shut up, and NOT cooperate...

so hire one and stfu

LordBeaverbrook · 05-17-2013, 11:23 AM

Let's get a grip here and use a little perspective. I'm not saying what happened isn't inappropriate, but that is about all really.

#1 - 501(c)(4) applications poured in after the 2008 election and Karl Rove and others use of 501(C)(4) groups (yes some progressive groups did too, but far more conservative).

#2 - The statute reads that purpose must be "exclusively" for the promotion of social welfare, but IRS has interpreted "exclusively" as "primarily" for decades. The tax payer should not be subsidizing these political activities, period.

#3 - The Tea Party and conservative groups admitted in their submissions that they engaged in political activity (perhaps secondarily).

#4 - The IRS "targeting" was asking extra questions and delaying approval. No auditing, fines, prison, harassment, etc... This is pretty terrible isn't it? There were some inappropriate data requested too. This must have hurt their feelings terribly. So sad, too bad.

#5 - Actually the targeting was probably correct, not targeting and delaying liberal liberal and progressive groups was probably the real scandal (or allowing these orgs to engage in political activity). They should have been questioned and delayed just like conservative groups, but the IRS seems not to have had enough resources.

#6 - All the conservative groups got approved. Some of the progressive groups got denied. I'm sure their feelings were hurt too so hopefully they can sue with the TPers.

#7 - There is no evidence of any higher ups in the IRS, much less the WH, initially knowing about this much less instigating it and besides, the IRS commissioner at the time was a Republican appointed by Bush (so might this not be a false flag operation?).

#8 - Because of Nixon's abuses of the IRS Congress made the IRS a semi-autonomous agency and firewalled all political communication between the IRS and WH off. Screams that Obama isn't in charge of the IRS are absurd since that is exactly what Congress intended. Conservatives didn't scream that Bush wasn't in charge of the military (though he WAS Commander in Chief) when Abu Ghraib happened and they completely accepted that it was only low level soldiers who perpetrated torture and killing. Are you really saying that questions and delays of conservatives are far worse than torture and killing of POWs (though they are foreigners aren't they?)

It is funny that people and groups who complain vociferously about frivolous lawsuits in so many other areas of life are threatening to sue because they were questioned and delayed by the government (ironic that this seems to bolster their claims that government doesn't do much well, except maybe approve progressive applications, as truth in their cases at least - self fulfilling prophesy perhaps?). What was the real infliction of damage to them? Hurt feelings and delays in political activity which they should not engage in anyway. How much in money damages should that be worth?

Jail time for questions and delays? Absurd. How soon we forget. I don't remember hearing calls from Conservatives for jail time around Abu Ghraib, even though a few soldiers eventually got jail time. The right did not call for an investigation except for how the pictures got leaked. So do they really think that questions and delays by the IRS are so much worse than torture and death by the military? Really?

This is a tempest in a teapot. The real solution here is to not give tax exempt status to any organizations engaging in political activity under this section 501(c)(4). No audits were done (like Bush's White House did to the NAACP for disagreeing with them) and no real harassment. Just questions, delays and hurt feelings. Terrible.

Prediction: IRS, AP and Benghazi will fade completely from view by this summer and Republicans will lose the House in 2014 because they were far more interested in trying to manufacture scandals than finding ways to create jobs for Americans.