IRS targeted conservative groups

Tools    





It is actually okay for you to mention it. It is not okay, as you have been doing, to accept such testimony as fact and to be rubbing your hands like it is vital, smoking gun stuff.
This is sheer invention. When I posted the link I described it as "IRS agents have already told Congress." All this stuff about "treating it as fact" or "smoking gun stuff" is a total straw man.

First off, your sources for what we are talking about has been a phantom, a Wall Street Journal article that could not be accessed without a subscription, which made it hard to know exactly what it said from secondary sources.
...which doesn't remotely explain why you thought your source contradicted it. Everything I'd reproduced from it and said about it was in your source, too. So please, explain to me how the WSJ pay wall caused you to misread a completely different article.

Secondy, the actual testimny has shown in many instances Washington invovement more ambiguous than advertised and often of the I believe so variety rather than any direct knowledge.
So? This doesn't contradict anything I said. Hofacre claims direct knowledge, and Mufert does too, in the sense of having heard it directly from his superior (and not merely inferred it circumstantially). So your claim that the source didn't say what I said it did was and is wrong.

You are the one who has been making accusations and innuendoes that if I was doing it with the same scanty information against President elect Romney you would be screaming bloody murder. That is not intellectual shame, to only be idignant when the other party is in power? So shame on you being wrong, shame on you making false accusations, and shame on being ignorant of the topic, because every word of it applies to you as much as would me.
Except I wasn't wrong, I didn't make false accusations, and I'm not ignorant of the topic. But other than that, yeah, ya' totally got me.

Are you capable of responding to this stuff without changing the subject? Doesn't seem like it. It seems like every time you get called on this stuff you try to draw some hacky equivalence to take the focus off of your own mistakes. As if you think your behavior and mistakes are somehow excused if you can try to accuse someone else. But they aren't.



I think so. If he wasn't using this scandal just as a punching bag against a President he doesn't like for partisan reasons and proves his insincerity by his shifting excuses when the other side engages in similar behavior, then I let him have his say. I don't think it is honest or fair to have double standards depending on which party is in power.
Ah yes, the constant, hazy references to "double standards." And based on what, exactly? All I recall is an argument about which 2012 campaign was more "substantive"--you claimed some specific Romney ad met the criteria (which missed the point, anyway), and I gave you reasons it didn't, and you simply rejected them. And that was pretty much it. Ever since, you've claimed a double standard, which was and is in dispute.

I've noticed you like to do this...refer back to disputes as if they were proof of something. Or misremember disputes in convenient ways that inflate their power. It happened again recently with financial crisis' and recessions, where you decided to remember some disagreement as you proving something wrong, and of course when we had it out again, you couldn't do anything of the sort. You did it again with the NSA thing, even though I hadn't said anything about it!

It's argumentative mythmaking.



Looks to me like you're the attack dog here, will.
He doesn't have a choice; he can't play defense. Every argument about Obama became about Mitt Romney or Bush. Every error of his own immediately becomes about someone else.

The guy has completely absorbed the mainstream media approach to politics, where this kind of stuff works, even though it leaves him completely out of his league in an actual, real-world argument with informed people.



I am probably wasting my time here, but I honestly am interested in the answer to this question, and even when everything appears hopeless I still like to try to help people out. Will and Yoda, since it's very clear that you both do not feel that the other is arguing in good faith, and you don't appear to respect the others opinion, and these are necessary elements for anyone who seeks to learn grow, and re-evaluate one's position, why are either one of you engaging in these debates? You both engage in endless arguments about policy issues, but if neither one of you sees the other as a credible source of information, or as someone who is honest and truthful, what are either one of you gaining from these conversations? I am not seeking to take sides here, but it just seems to me that this is a fruitless conversation, which benefits no one and leads to increasing levels of frustration for all concerned. I am all for policy debates. I engage in them all the time, but when both parties in the policy debate are as mistrustful of each other as you two are, I fail to see how anything positive can be accomplished. The ingredients for a worthwhile and productive exchange are totally absent.



Seems like a lot of people get caught up in partisan bickering because, really, none of them are being well-represented in the places where any meaningful change could actually occur. So they're stuck arguing in bad faith while the political big-shots in both parties are laughing all the way to the bank.
__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!



Will does make some good points sometimes. I can't think of any right now but I'm sure he has, somewhere, somehow.

I just dislike party politics in general. It encourages mental laziness, reactionary rhetoric, and moral weakness.

I care about humanity as a whole and its future. I care about human rights and individual freedom. Nothing's perfect in life and the best we can do is try to find good balances between things to create a world that's fair but not indifferent to people's needs, that's human-centric but not dictatorial about what everyone should be and do.

I WISH I didn't care about these things. I've given up a million times, and always come back for more.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
This is sheer invention. When I posted the link I described it as "IRS agents have already told Congress." All this stuff about "treating it as fact" or "smoking gun stuff" is a total straw man.

You preface your comments with things like "this is messed up" which goes way beyond simple reporting. A fair commentary, which you don't do, would be something like, "if this it true, it would mean..." But you don't do that. it is always worded in a way that makes it clear you are taking the revelations as gospel.


...which doesn't remotely explain why you thought your source contradicted it. Everything I'd reproduced from it and said about it was in your source, too. So please, explain to me how the WSJ pay wall caused you to misread a completely different article.

And I provided another source that showed the remarks contained ambiguity you glossed over. It might have even been in the original WSJ article or a later one. Hard to say because I couldn't access the original article and had to rely on secondary sources.


So? This doesn't contradict anything I said. Hofacre claims direct knowledge, and Mufert does too, in the sense of having heard it directly from his superior (and not merely inferred it circumstantially). So your claim that the source didn't say what I said it did was and is wrong.

Mufert does not say that if you look at the last link I provided. He backtracked from that in further questioning. Nor does Hofacre exactly. In her case at this point I am very suspicous because she sounds like someone who may be trying to pass the buck. It appears if she didn't have a superior giving her direct orders she may be the one feeling the most heat. She says she expressed her concerns to superiors with a possible e mail trail, but the investigators don't have that yet apparently. Why don't you just wait until Hull's testimony is released to see what he says? But you don't wait. Your attitude is apparent when you started it with the absurd how many times an IRS official visited the White House, implying some grand conspiracy based on that.


Except I wasn't wrong, I didn't make false accusations, and I'm not ignorant of the topic. But other than that, yeah, ya' totally got me.
You have been wrong. You have made false accusations. Your first post is a case of that. Your accepting as fact things still in dispute is another. Your only focus on testimony that conforms to your assumption the targeting was directed in Washington for political purposes while ignoring testimony that contradicts that is another. You keep insisting the targeting began before the influx of applications in Cincinatti, which contracicts repeated testimony at the hearings that says otherwise. And your discussion is not about IRS targeting conservative groups, it is arguing it was done for political purposes, to stifle the oppositon during an election, and was directed by Washington at the top with officals that had access to the President in the loop. That has been your topic, not a simple fact finding mission to discover why IRS officials targeted the Tea Party.

Are you capable of responding to this stuff without changing the subject? Doesn't seem like it. It seems like every time you get called on this stuff you try to draw some hacky equivalence to take the focus off of your own mistakes. As if you think your behavior and mistakes are somehow excused if you can try to accuse someone else. But they aren't.
I am not changing the subject. Your motives are very relevant. I know you don't like to address it because you have no defense for it except to admit you only care because it is the IRS in a Democrat administration targeting GOP alligned groups. You don't care about any principles. You are just angry the target was a political group you like. If Romney's IRS used the same tactics agains unions we wouldn't hear a word from you about it except to defend them if someone slse brought it up. When it comes to this sort of thing, it is all politics with you. It is all just partisan war.
__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula



You preface your comments with things like "this is messed up" which goes way beyond simple reporting. A fair commentary, which you don't do, would be something like, "if this it true, it would mean..." But you don't do that. it is always worded in a way that makes it clear you are taking the revelations as gospel.
There's a lot of daylight between merely "reporting" and "taking it as gospel." I'm certainly suspicious, and I have plenty of reason to be, but I'm prudent enough not to pretend my suspicions are facts. If I wanted to suggest something was fact, I would. You don't get to argue with the things I deliberately choose not to claim, no matter how hard up you are for substantive objections.

And I provided another source that showed the remarks contained ambiguity you glossed over. It might have even been in the original WSJ article or a later one. Hard to say because I couldn't access the original article and had to rely on secondary sources.
Mufert does not say that if you look at the last link I provided. He backtracked from that in further questioning. Nor does Hofacre exactly. In her case at this point I am very suspicous because she sounds like someone who may be trying to pass the buck. It appears if she didn't have a superior giving her direct orders she may be the one feeling the most heat. She says she expressed her concerns to superiors with a possible e mail trail, but the investigators don't have that yet apparently. Why don't you just wait until Hull's testimony is released to see what he says? But you don't wait. Your attitude is apparent when you started it with the absurd how many times an IRS official visited the White House, implying some grand conspiracy based on that.
This is way too vague to possibly answer specifically, but it doesn't really matter, because the bottom line is this: the source says what I said it did. You issued a standard kneejerk denial/accusation/whatever, and it was incorrect. This wouldn't be a big deal, except it happens all the damn time, and you don't seem to get any more careful when it does.

You have been wrong. You have made false accusations. Your first post is a case of that. Your accepting as fact things still in dispute is another. Your only focus on testimony that conforms to your assumption the targeting was directed in Washington for political purposes while ignoring testimony that contradicts that is another. You keep insisting the targeting began before the influx of applications in Cincinatti, which contracicts repeated testimony at the hearings that says otherwise.
What testimony is that? You've provided nothing to this effect. You tried to, when you referenced Hofacre's quote about needing help, but as you may recall that didn't make any sense because she was reacting to the targeting, which by definition means it can't have been a response. Is that the "repeated testimony" you're referring to?

I am not changing the subject. Your motives are very relevant.
This is just sloppy thinking. The second sentence doesn't explain the first, even if you take it to be true. Many people other than myself have already tried to explain to you why your reasoning in this regard is logically fallacious, though you remain weirdly impervious to the concept. But in this instance, even if you're right about it being relevant, you're still inarguably changing the subject. You're offering absolutely no defense for your errors or your ignorance: you're simply leveling a counter accusation to avoid admitting it.

I know you don't like to address it because you have no defense for it except to admit you only care because it is the IRS in a Democrat administration targeting GOP alligned groups. You don't care about any principles. You are just angry the target was a political group you like. If Romney's IRS used the same tactics agains unions we wouldn't hear a word from you about it except to defend them if someone slse brought it up. When it comes to this sort of thing, it is all politics with you. It is all just partisan war.
Defense for what? The thing you claim I would do in an alternate universe? What would a defense of that look like, exactly? It would only be a flat contradiction--as useless as the accusation itself.

I am definitely especially mad that things I believe are the target of the attack, but you're dead wrong if you think I'd be fine with this if it were happening the other way. It's wrong in any direction. It'd be wrong if it happened to Communist groups, too. You want to believe otherwise? Knock yourself out. I don't give a damn. But stop pretending that shrieking these repetitive accusations over and over again is an argument. It isn't.



So, let's recap: I referenced sources. You said they didn't really say what I claimed. Turns out they did.

You said the WSJ was making things up. It wasn't.

You suggested the targeting may have just been to deal with the influx. The targeting started beforehand.

You suggested the groups were merely labeled suspicious, and this is in and of itself wasn't inherently wrong. But the thing that got them labeled suspicious was the targeting.

And when confronted with that last one, your response was (direct quote): "So I didn't know it before, so what?"

This is a jaw-dropping list of mistakes and false accusations. I don't know why you think you have any credibility left here.

Operative, take us out:






will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
So, let's recap: I referenced sources. You said they didn't really say what I claimed. Turns out they did.

Yes, let's recap. You provided two links which were worthless because they were invisible, they could not be accessed unless you were a subcriber to the WSJ and you refused to provide either an actual link that could be accessed or paste the actual article which might have worked. So it is my fault I wasn't sure what was in it? But as it turns out you still were not accurate because apparently the actual article or a later one had information that contradicts what you reported.
You said the WSJ was making things up. It wasn't.

I said it might not be reporting accurately as I had to rely on secondary sources which came from a right wing source that had only excerpts with editorial commentary in black. I never said they were absolutely making it up, but responded to your assertion it was a reliable news source by correctly pointing out it had recently been taken over by Rupert Murdoch who had a reputation in Grerat BRITAIN for BUYING A PAPER KNOWN FOR ACCURATE REPORTING AND TURNING IT INTO A PROPAGANDA PIECE. I DIDN'T HAVE THAT BRITAIN CONNECTION IN MY PREVIOUS COMMENTS. I AM ADDING IT NOW TO SHOW IT IS HARDLY PARANOIA TO QUESTiON WSJ REPORTING WHEN MURDOCJH IS NOW THE OWNER.

You suggested the targeting may have just been to deal with the influx. The targeting started beforehand.

Actually, it didn't. Even your own sources say the Cincinatti branch requested help from the IRS Washington lawyer because of the influx of applications. This is indisputable. Why do you keep repeating a lie?

You suggested the groups were merely labeled suspicious, and this is in and of itself wasn't inherently wrong. But the thing that got them labeled suspicious was the targeting.

You are confused about the timeline. The targeting that was wrong is searching for applications with key words. That wasn't done from the start.

And when confronted with that last one, your response was (direct quote): "So I didn't know it before, so what?"

That's a lie. I didn't say it in response to that. It was a general reply to the discussion at the start of the thread.

This is a jaw-dropping list of mistakes and false accusations. I don't know why you think you have any credibility left here.

Operative, take us out:



My credibility at this point is certainly no worse than yours.

I eagerly await for your next biased revelation/testimony that has recently been leaked, which if you report it accurately (which you won't) has fodder for both sides. Since I already read that from a source that isn't from the invisible WSJ I am ready for that discussion. That testimony does have a jaw dropping sentence I certainly don't beleve, which makes the testimony perhaps less credible, but her testimony about Hull's particpation and the real reason for the year delay on applications if true harldy fits your Washington control assertion of the targeting.



Ok Will try this out, I hate both parties, good luck with your partisan attacks here.
Actually, it didn't. Even your own sources say the Cincinatti branch requested help from the IRS Washington lawyer because of the influx of applications. This is indisputable. Why do you keep repeating a lie?
Well, funny how indisputable this is, considering you're wrong

Here's some greatest hits, I know it'll be easier to follow:

1) The scrutiny began, however, in March 2010, before an uptick could have been observed, according to data contained in the audit released Tuesday from the Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration.

In other words, it happened earlier.

2) the criteria the IRS was using to flag groups had changed three times to include searches for groups with names that contained “Bill of Rights,” “educating on the constitution,” and “limiting/expanding government.”

In other words, the IRS doesn't seem to like political education.

3) “Between 2010 and 2012, we started seeing a very big uptick in the number of 501(c)(4) applications we were receiving,” she said. “It more than doubled.”

4) IRS officials did not return requests for comment about the discrepancy in how they accounted for their actions. Since her comments, both Democrats and Republicans have condemned the procedures.

This is particularly interesting, even the men in blue seem to understand this is a real situation.

So I didn't know it before, so what?
Do you know yet? I made it pretty easy on the eyes. So what is a terrible argument for future reference fyi



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
Your article is confusing investigating tea party groups and targeting them. The illegal targeting, using words like tea party and patriot in computer searches to identiy them, did not begin then. The big contoversy is when the targeting directed from Washington and the only evidence of any Washington involvement was not in 2010 and was because the Cincinatti office contacted an IRS attorney there for guidance on what criteria to use in examing an application because of the influx of applications. There is now testimiony the delay may have due to miscommuncation between Washington and Cincinatti. And notice how more carefully I report this than Yoda? if he used language like this I wouldn't have a problem even if the reporting was all on one end.



Your article is confusing investigating tea party groups and targeting them.
Well, you see, when you investigate one particular group, that's targeting. Okay, next week kids we'll learn the second half of the alphabet.
The illegal targeting, using words like tea party and patriot in computer searches to identiy them, did not begin then.
So you're saying it did begin at some point? This is new.
The big contoversy is when the targeting directed from Washington and the only evidence of any Washington involvement was not in 2010 and was because the Cincinatti office contacted an IRS attorney there for guidance on what criteria to use in examing an application because of the influx of applications. There is now testimiony the delay may have due to miscommuncation between Washington and Cincinatti. And notice how more carefully I report this than Yoda?
Carefully? You just said all of the sudden there was illegal targeting, and now you're quoting the article exhibiting how the targeting was carried out. And this delay you're talking about is somewhat illegal in of itself.



Wrong again:

March 1-17, 2010: IRS agents identify the first 10 "Tea Party cases" applications though not all had "tea party" in their name, according to a draft of The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) appendix. IRS' Determinations Unit had asked for a search of "tea party or similar organizations' applications."
But I already see the trick here: you're just arbitrarily deciding that it wasn't "targeting" until January of 2012, when they ramped it up. Which is absurd, because they were specifically going after these organizations based on their ideology before, and Lerner says she ordered it to stop when she found it. Which is totally what you do when something completely not wrong at all is happening. For sure.



Guess what? I'm about to prove every thing you just denied, with links for reference. Ready? It's probably not going to be pleasant:



You said "The other reports do not say they heard from their superiors." Wrong: the ABC article quotes Muthert saying exactly that (paragraphs 15-16).

You said that according to your source the agents "had no direct knowledge it was coming from Washington." Wrong: the ABC article quotes Hofacre explicitly contradicting this (paragraph 5).

You said the targeting started after the influx. Wrong: it started before. You're confusing the targeting with the request for assistance; they're not the same thing. I already pointed this out, by the way. You didn't respond.

You said the targeting "wasn't done from the start." Wrong: the targeting had two phases. They were instructed to find "tea party or similar organizations' applications" as early as March of 2010. You're presumably confused because they expanded and formalized further in January of 2012.

You said that the "so what?" was "a general reply to the discussion at the start of the thread." Wrong: it's right here, and it was in reference to exactly what I just said. Not that it matters what you said in reference to; the point is that you didn't care you were ignorant.

My credibility at this point is certainly no worse than yours.
You have 50 posts in this thread now, and not a single one of them has received a single rep nor a single reply of agreement, that I can see. But yeah, sure, people think you have just as much credibility as I do. They just choose not to express it out of their deep, abiding respect.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
There's a lot of daylight between merely "reporting" and "taking it as gospel." I'm certainly suspicious, and I have plenty of reason to be, but I'm prudent enough not to pretend my suspicions are facts. If I wanted to suggest something was fact, I would. You don't get to argue with the things I deliberately choose not to claim, no matter how hard up you are for substantive objections.

You provide commentary that geso beyond mere reporting and for all extent and puroses presume the testiminy is inherently f damning which makes it in your view essentially gospel.

This is way too vague to possibly answer specifically, but it doesn't really matter, because the bottom line is this: the source says what I said it did. You issued a standard kneejerk denial/accusation/whatever, and it was incorrect. This wouldn't be a big deal, except it happens all the damn time, and you don't seem to get any more careful when it does.

Well, does it? Because either the same WSJ article or another one contradicts what you chose to highlight.


What testimony is that? You've provided nothing to this effect. You tried to, when you referenced Hofacre's quote about needing help, but as you may recall that didn't make any sense because she was reacting to the targeting, which by definition means it can't have been a response. Is that the "repeated testimony" you're referring to?

Was she reacting to the targeting or was she reacting to being accused of targeting tea party applications on her own? She sounds very defensive, and maybe be she is correct to assert that she had no control, but it also sounds like the old i was only following orders defense. It is not my fault it is the person over me who was in charge.


This is just sloppy thinking. The second sentence doesn't explain the first, even if you take it to be true. Many people other than myself have already tried to explain to you why your reasoning in this regard is logically fallacious, though you remain weirdly impervious to the concept. But in this instance, even if you're right about it being relevant, you're still inarguably changing the subject. You're offering absolutely no defense for your errors or your ignorance: you're simply leveling a counter accusation to avoid admitting it.

This is very funny. The many people you cite is at best two. And of course it is relevant if you only care about this as political fodder instead of as an important principal. Because it makes your outrage hollow and unconvincing abd really quite dishonest. I notice you never deny that is indeed what you are doing, which is why the irrelevant argument is so important to you.

Defense for what? The thing you claim I would do in an alternate universe? What would a defense of that look like, exactly? It would only be a flat contradiction--as useless as the accusation itself.

There is no need for an alternative universe. There have already been many, many examples of you getting upset over what Obama or Dems did, then when it is pointed out similar trangrssions happened under Bush, you try to make some kind of technical distinction that only exists in your own mind.

I am definitely especially mad that things I believe are the target of the attack, but you're dead wrong if you think I'd be fine with this if it were happening the other way. It's wrong in any direction. It'd be wrong if it happened to Communist groups, too. You want to believe otherwise? Knock yourself out. I don't give a damn. But stop pretending that shrieking these repetitive accusations over and over again is an argument. It isn't.
I absolutely don't believe you would care if the targeting was done under Bush against groups you didn't like. Your track record for defending that administration for things as bad or worse than what happened under Obama doesn't give me any reason to think that.



Actually, I've denied your vapid accusations many times, but you just repeat them anyway. I rarely bother to contradict them any more because there's not much point; when perfectly rational distinctions are offered, you just reject them, often without any real reason.

Also, I pointed out that it's changing the subject (away from your own mistakes) even if it's relevant, and you responded by...arguing that it's relevant and then changing the subject again! Amazing. Thanks for proving my point.




Will, it's ridiculous to be in constant kneejerk opposition to Yoda based on who is or isn't in power. Can you see that?

It doesn't help your party to discredit yourself when slavish loyalty turns into wretched argumentation, denial, and finger-pointing. Can you see that?

Even within the two-party paradigm, a smart strategist knows that there will be times when you lose battles. If you fight tooth & nail past the point of absurdity over every facet of every scandal and treat each one as if you're the captain going down with a sinking ship, you don't get a blue ribbon for undying loyalty; Instead you've effectively neutralized yourself in future debate.

Can you see that?

I'm tossing you a lifeline here. Ease up a little on the partisan BS tactics and re-evaluate your approach. Get some perspective. You're not doing yourself or your party any favors by this. Your playbook is transparent.

I'm not trying to take sides at all. You should know that. If Yoda did the same, I'll call him out.



A system of cells interlinked
This is why I reside firmly on the fence. I can throw mud at both sides with equal vim and vigor!
__________________
"There’s absolutely no doubt you can be slightly better tomorrow than you are today." - JBP