IRS targeted conservative groups

Tools    





The TP groups never lost a tax exemption. They were new groups applying for one.
See, this is what I'm talking about. Sounds to me like you're just ignorant of the basic facts here. The groups in question didn't get the exemptions in the first place. Many gave up applying, and many were still waiting when the news came out. That simply has no comparison to a group that was merely investigated, but kept its designation. None.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
It is not any different because none of them were denied the exemption. It is wrong they were tied up in these endless probes. Most of them did get it, but not in a timely manner but government rarely does anything in a timely matter. Again, the issue is motivation, and those answers have not come yet.
__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
No, actually, systematically targeting political opponents does not cross party lines.
What are you calling systematic?



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
More: it appears the IRS leaked tax documents from a conservative advocacy group...directly to an opposition liberal group. During the campaign.

This is really getting messed up.
The article doesn't show that at all. It has an allegation and the so-called proof without corroboration by another source is thin gruel, like the experts declaring Obama's birth certificate was a fake. It may be so, that another expert who was not hired by the head of a tea party group would make the same conclusion, that the information came directly from an IRS document. But what you have here is at this point far from being messed up, except for your extraordinary sloppiness in drawing conclusions from it.



It is not any different because none of them were denied the exemption.
Huh? In one example, a group HAS its designation and gets the tax benefits from it. In the other, they never get it, and thus never get the benefits. On what planet is that the same?

It is wrong they were tied up in these endless probes. Most of them did get it, but not in a timely manner but government rarely does anything in a timely matter.
Funny, because they managed to approve liberal groups in a relatively timely manner:
WASHINGTON -- In the 27 months that the Internal Revenue Service put a hold on all Tea Party applications for non-profit status, it approved applications from similar liberal groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows.

As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with obviously liberal names were approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," these groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups.
It's becoming pretty obvious that you're not up on the basic facts of the situation. Which, as always, begs the question of why you're arguing about it.

What are you calling systematic?
Ongoing and deliberate, both of which have been established. During any administration there will be investigations, and some of those will involve people of differing viewpoints. That isn't what's going on here.



The article doesn't show that at all. It has an allegation and the so-called proof without corroboration by another source is thin gruel, like the experts declaring Obama's birth certificate was a fake. It may be so, that another expert who was not hired by the head of a tea party group would make the same conclusion, that the information came directly from an IRS document. But what you have here is at this point far from being messed up, except for your extraordinary sloppiness in drawing conclusions from it.
The "article" is a report on Congressional testimony from the House Ways and Means Committee. This isn't some offhand accusation.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
It is at this point an offhand accusation.

There isn't anything of substance to back it up. All you have is a targeted tea party member saying he hired an expert who concluded the leaked information came from an IRS document. I would like to hear what another expert not hired by that guy says before I assume it is apparently true. Wouldn't you? I am not stating an impossible standard.



Sure I would. And my use of the word "apparently" is an acknowledgement that we'll have to wait for full confirmation. But people do not testify before Congressional committees lightly, either. It's well worth mentioning, especially in light of the abuse that's already been admitted.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
Huh? In one example, a group HAS its designation and gets the tax benefits from it. In the other, they never get it, and thus never get the benefits. On what planet is that the same?


Funny, because they managed to approve liberal groups in a relatively timely manner:
WASHINGTON -- In the 27 months that the Internal Revenue Service put a hold on all Tea Party applications for non-profit status, it approved applications from similar liberal groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows.

As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with obviously liberal names were approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," these groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups.
It's becoming pretty obvious that you're not up on the basic facts of the situation. Which, as always, begs the question of why you're arguing about it.

Wait a minute? As little as nine months applications were approved? That is timely? And nobody is disputing there was a problem in Cinicnatti. That is why this whole notion it was orchestrated at the top seems dubious. Why only in the Cincinatti office? There was no hold on all applications from tea party groups except in that region amd that may have been triggered by the massive amount of applications coming there.

Ongoing and deliberate, both of which have been established. During any administration there will be investigations, and some of those will involve people of differing viewpoints. That isn't what's going on here.
That has gone on in previous administrations, that criteria. it is not unique to thsi situation in other administrations.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
Sure I would. And my use of the word "apparently" is an acknowledgement that we'll have to wait for full confirmation. But people do not testify before Congressional committees lightly, either. It's well worth mentioning, especially in light of the abuse that's already been admitted.
The witness is a tea party guy. He already doesn't like the president. He is testifying truthfully from his point of view. But his testimony about this is what he suspects happened, the leaked information came from the IRS, which may be so, but his only evidence is his hired expert agreed with him.



Wait a minute? As little as nine months applications were approved? That is timely?
Yeah, I thought you'd say exactly this, and it's a completely nonsensical response.

Compared to never, yeah, nine months is fast. But the overall speed isn't the issue; the issue is that different ideological groups got different treatment. So this "government is always slow" business is a complete red herring. It doesn't explain, defend, or excuse what happened in the slightest.

And nobody is disputing there was a problem in Cinicnatti. That is why this whole notion it was orchestrated at the top seems dubious. Why only in the Cincinatti office? There was no hold on all applications from tea party groups except in that region amd that may have been triggered by the massive amount of applications coming there.
Nope. That was the line they sold at first, when everyone thought the targeting began in 2012. But then we found out it started in 2010, which actually saw fewer applications than the year before. And IRS officials have already told Congress that the targeting was directed by "officials in Washington."

This is probably the third time you've made a claim that's at odds with the basic facts of the situation. You should probably educate yourself on the topic more before you continue arguing about it.

That has gone on in previous administrations, that criteria. it is not unique to thsi situation in other administrations.
Based on what? You've provided no evidence to this effect. In fact, the one thing you tried to argue was comparable (which, again, didn't even result in anyone's exemption being denied) wasn't even for the same tax designation. I didn't notice at first, but the church in the article is a 501(c)(3), not a 501(c)(4). The former has a stricter qualifying standards. There's basically no meaningful angle, then, from which it's comparable.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
Yeah, I thought you'd say exactly this, and it's a completely nonsensical response.

Compared to never, yeah, nine months is fast. But the overall speed isn't the issue; the issue is that different ideological groups got different treatment. So this "government is always slow" business is a complete red herring. It doesn't explain, defend, or excuse what happened in the slightest.

What is unfair is they were being flagged for key things like being affiliated with tea party groups. But the applications that were delayed the most had things that were supposedly suspicious. The issue is were liberal groups getting a pass with applications with the same information? It is wrong if different standards are used to scrutinize organizations based on political affiiation. But the applications being held up the most, if there were legitimately suspicous things in it is not in itself wrong. Once you get red flagged for that, then an application that even under the best of circumstances will take at least nine months will take a lot, lot longer.


Nope. That was the line they sold at first, when everyone thought the targeting began in 2012. But then we found out it started in 2010, which actually saw fewer applications than the year before. And IRS officials have already told Congress that the targeting was directed by "officials in Washington."

Stop linking to WSJ because i am not subscribed there and the articles don't show up for me. I will try to find another source for this story later.

I found it. And it sure wasn't easy because most of the other sources were just referencing the WSJ headline without the story. The question remains, why was the focus in Cincinatti if it was being directed in Washington? Why was it only going on in that region? it will be interesting to see where this is going, but you keep drawing conclusions when we still don't know much. These IRS agents may be telling the truth or they may be doing what Lerner may be doing if she is involved, putting the blame on someone else.


This is probably the third time you've made a claim that's at odds with the basic facts of the situation. You should probably educate yourself on the topic more before you continue arguing about it.

No, because I was not making claims that are at odds with the basic facts. That is your specialty. What you linked (if I coud read it, presuming I have the same basic story) is agents contradicting the Washingtom IRS claim it was rogue agents. We still don't know who is telling it right. And we still don't know why it was only coming from Cincinatti.


Based on what? You've provided no evidence to this effect. In fact, the one thing you tried to argue was comparable (which, again, didn't even result in anyone's exemption being denied) wasn't even for the same tax designation. I didn't notice at first, but the church in the article is a 501(c)(3), not a 501(c)(4). The former has a stricter qualifying standards. There's basically no meaningful angle, then, from which it's comparable.
You never heard of Richard Nixon and his use of the IRS?



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
It turns out that WSJ story, if what I read was sourced from them, may not even be accurate. Other news sources what appears to be the same story reports two IRS agents suspect the targeting was being directed from Washington, but were not told that and have no direct knowledge it did. Congressional investigators using this information are trying to confirm it by tracing email. Maybe they will confirm it, maybe they won't. But once again you were jumping to a conclusion that has far from been proven to be a fact.



What is unfair is they were being flagged for key things like being affiliated with tea party groups. But the applications that were delayed the most had things that were supposedly suspicious.
Suspicious based on what criteria? The whole problem here is that the BOLO statement the IRS issued defined "suspicious" in a way that only applied to conservatives. So this a circular argument.

The issue is were liberal groups getting a pass with applications with the same information? It is wrong if different standards are used to scrutinize organizations based on political affiiation. But the applications being held up the most, if there were legitimately suspicous things in it is not in itself wrong. Once you get red flagged for that, then an application that even under the best of circumstances will take at least nine months will take a lot, lot longer.
This is one of those questions where the mere way you're asking it suggests you're not really clear on what's going on. See above for more on why. But, in short: yes, liberal groups engaging in similar political activity were not being subjected to the same level of scrutiny, as already stated in the USA Today article I linked to before.

The question remains, why was the focus in Cincinatti if it was being directed in Washington? Why was it only going on in that region? it will be interesting to see where this is going, but you keep drawing conclusions when we still don't know much. These IRS agents may be telling the truth or they may be doing what Lerner may be doing if she is involved, putting the blame on someone else.
Expressing skepticism is completely different than what you've been doing, which is asserting the opposite: referencing the scandal being confined to Cincinnati as if this were an established fact.

No, because I was not making claims that are at odds with the basic facts. That is your specialty. What you linked (if I coud read it, presuming I have the same basic story) is agents contradicting the Washingtom IRS claim it was rogue agents. We still don't know who is telling it right. And we still don't know why it was only coming from Cincinatti.
I wasn't referring to the Congressional testimony. I was referring to claim that the targeting was a response to an influx of applications. That is completely at odds with the basic facts.

You never heard of Richard Nixon and his use of the IRS?
So when you brush this off because "both parties do it," you're talking about Nixon, 40 years ago? Seriously?



It turns out that WSJ story, if what I read was sourced from them, may not even be accurate. Other news sources what appears to be the same story reports two IRS agents suspect the targeting was being directed from Washington, but were not told that and have no direct knowledge it did. Congressional investigators using this information are trying to confirm it by tracing email. Maybe they will confirm it, maybe they won't. But once again you were jumping to a conclusion that has far from been proven to be a fact.
The WSJ article doesn't really have any ambiguity to it:

Two Internal Revenue Service employees in the agency's Cincinnati office told congressional investigators that IRS officials in Washington helped direct the probe of tea-party groups that began in 2010.
It's a pretty tall order to suggest a major newspaper is making a major factual error upon which the entire story is based, so no, it's not "jumping to conclusions" to expect that the reporting is basically accurate.

If you want to suggest it's wrong, you should provide that source. I'm positive I've said this before, but apparently it has to be said again: there's no reason not to provide the source upfront when you want to make a claim like this. They should only be excluded if you're making reference to something well established which you expect nobody will question.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
You want me to cite other legit news sources reporting the same story with far more ambiguous language what they said? They include some of the same quotes from the agents, except it includes they supect and had no direct knowledge it was coming from Washington. That makes a big difference. And are you forgetting the WSJ was bought up by Rupert Murdoch and so we can no longer assume their news reporting is as reliable as it was before the takeover?



Yes, I want you to cite other sources any time you dispute the factual content of something. There's zero reason not to.

That said, I think I can already guess what the issue is: the WSJ article says that the IRS agents heard from their superior that someone in Washington was directing things. If that's the only issue, then I think the use of the word "suspect" is fairly ridiculous, because it implies speculation where it appears none is involved. This isn't something they pieced together from circumstantial evidence: it's something they say they were explicitly told.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
No, that is not what the articles said. The other reports do not say they heard from their superiors. It says two agents with only one being quoted suspected Washington inivolvement because iof the scrutiny their work was receiving, which is not the same thing. And you are the one that chose to cite what turns out to be a rogue version of the story. What I eventully found that apparently was citing the WSJ version was from some right wing source that had jolly commentary in black every paragraph or two about the evil Obama administration. They needed the WSJ version to do that slant. You know something? Since you now know your version is not accurate and was not the version published widely by the media, why should i provide a direct link to it? You can find it. And it is quite hilarious you are taking this cocky attitude about providing a link when I never received a proper link from you for your source because the WSJ limits its website to people who either subscribe to the paper or subscribe directly to the site. But I will quote this excerpt from ABC:

Congressional investigators are starting to see cracks in the Internal Revenue Service argument that a small group of agents in the Cincinnati office solely targeted conservative political groups.

Investigators, who are still in the early stages of their probe, have not uncovered any direct evidence that senior officials in Washington ordered the agents to target tea party groups, or why they may have done so.

But two agents in the IRS's Cincinnati office say they believe their work was being closely monitored by higher-ups in Washington. One agent, Elizabeth Hofacre, complained to investigators that she was being micromanaged by Washington when she processed applications for tax-exempt status by tea party groups, according to a transcript of her interview with investigators.

Her interview suggests a long trail of emails that could support her claim.


The other versions od the story are in this vein. The one I first read explicitly said they suspected. None of the three three i read ever said they were told by their superiors the marching orders came from Washington.



If you want the text of the WSJ story, you can plug the article's title into Google News--they usually show the full text when referred by a search engine. Not that this has anything to do with your bizarre refusal to source your claims, for which there is simply no reasonable explanation.

That said, the quote from ABC doesn't appear to contradict anything in the WSJ report. It says they "believe" their work was being monitored, but that's a different claim from saying it was "directed," which the WSJ report says they were told by their superiors. And what is your accusation, anyway? That this is just made up? What part of "our superiors told us this" is supposed to be slant, exactly? Either they testified that, or not. If they did, it's not slant. If they didn't, it's a straight up fabrication. Is that what you're claiming?