Lois Lerner - deja vu

[HomerJS]

You can parrot that party line all you want but:

- Lois Lerner already apologized for targeting conservative groups.

- The Inspector General's report confirmed and said it was wrong doing.

- the (illegal) BOLO mentioned conservative names, not liberal ones.

There's been no proof that liberal groups were targeted. Were some audited? Sure, but the 'target squad' was set up and operated in parallel to the regular audit group. To conflate a regular audit with teh otehrs is dishonest.

To my knowledge the IRS hasn't yet released the list of targeted groups. Until they do I don't see how anybody can reasonably claim liberal groups were on it.

Have you seen any liberal groups suing the IRS over these illegal/unfair audits? I haven't. I think that's a clue.

Fern

Lois Lerner apologized for the result but has never admitted your accused intent.

BTW - How is citing numbers a talking point?

As far as the suits the fact there were more of them and they like to bitch explains that outcome.

Again why not deal with the interpretation of the law? I'll tell you why its a lot easier to sell to people in West Va "that Kenyan is out to git us" rather then deal with problem with the regulation.

 

[Bowfinger]

I'm not sure if you're being willfully dishonest, or are merely too intellectually crippled to think for yourself, but the information provided does not support your claim that Lerner provided confidential information. If you read the emails, you will find that they explicitly ask only for publicly available information. You've been duped yet again.



Just to clarify, the FBI is conducting an investigation. The Republicans are putting on a show for the rubes. Get your peanuts.

Bumping for Fern since Boomerang posted the same story earlier yesterday. It's really not hard to read the emails for oneself instead of gullibly swallowing whatever the propagandists claim they say.

 

[Bowfinger]

You can parrot that party line all you want but:

- Lois Lerner already apologized for targeting conservative groups.

- The Inspector General's report confirmed and said it was wrong doing.

- the (illegal) BOLO mentioned conservative names, not liberal ones.

Yawn. Yes, most everyone agrees using "Tea Party" as a search term was inappropriate. Lerner told her staff to stop as soon as she learned of it. That is not the question. The question is whether there was partisan motivation behind that choice, or if overloaded reviewers chose a poor shortcut in trying to quickly identify applications that needed extra scrutiny due to heavy political activities.

Also remember that this targeting was effective. The Inspector General noted that the vast majority of the ~300 applications pulled for review did, in fact, warrant additional scrutiny due to their political activity. The method was inappropriate, but the results were sound. Also, while you continue to insinuate this keyword match was the only criteria used to target applications, the fact is it wasn't even the primary approach. According to the IG, only about one-third of applications pulled were selected by the controversial BOLO. The other two-thirds were selected using other methods.

There's been no proof that liberal groups were targeted. Were some audited? Sure, but the 'target squad' was set up and operated in parallel to the regular audit group. To conflate a regular audit with teh otehrs is dishonest.

Target squad? Please cite something credible to support that phrase. It sounds like the usual loaded hyperbole from the usual wing-nut propaganda peddlers. Much as it may pain some conservative crybabies who think they are above the law, there is nothing wrong with the IRS trying to follow the regulations restricting the sorts of political activities permitted for 501(c)(4) groups.

And yes, liberal groups were targeted too. We know this because some have come forward, just as we found out about some conservative groups targeted. Some of those liberal groups described the same sorts of intrusive questioning the conservative groups reported. We know there was at least one other BOLO list that included terms commonly associated with the left. The only thing we don't know is the ratio of conservative groups to liberal groups because the IG declined to make such a subjective assessment.

To my knowledge the IRS hasn't yet released the list of targeted groups. Until they do I don't see how anybody can reasonably claim liberal groups were on it.

But of course that doesn't keep partisan righties from asserting there were no liberal groups on it. Guilty until proven innocent. /snicker

Have you seen any liberal groups suing the IRS over these illegal/unfair audits? I haven't. I think that's a clue.

Fern

Yes, it's a clue they don't share the right's persecution complex. It's a clue they aren't constantly seeking excuses to attack that evil (D) in the White House.

 

[TerryMathews]

At this point I feel pretty strongly that it IS a problem and IMO a pretty serious one.

The group involved here, True the Vote, that Cummings lied about filed a suit against the IRS. That suit prompted the House Committee investigation. Now if Cummings himself is behind, or some way involved in, the IRS scrutiny causing the lawsuit etc he should not be sitting on the committee. That is a conflict of interest. Cummings cannot be expected to fairly investigate the IRS for something he asked them to do.

I was running an errand a few hours ago and heard Jay Sokolov speaking. He's the attorney for the groups suing the IRS so he's biased. He claimed that, contrary to the committee's investigation rules, Cummings has been in contact with Lerner's attorney without the committee's approval or knowledge. I expect more will come out about this.

My suspicion is that Cummings really really doesn't want Lerner charged and compelled to testify. I think he'd much more like her to proffer testimony or get immunity. Either way it provides an opportunity to get Lerner and whomever else is involved off the hook and kill the whole issue. At worst she has to 'fall on the sword' and looks bad, which will be soon forgotten anyway.

Fern

Wouldn't it be funny if Cummings has acted even more inappropriately than Issa?

 

[boomerang]

Wouldn't it be funny if Cummings has acted even more inappropriately than Issa?

It would be, but he's going to get a pass regardless.

Read somewhere that he could get up to five years in prison if found guilty.

 

[werepossum]

I think it's at least questionable that Lerner can claim the 5th.

I have seen people can the 5th in testimony, but never seen one make declarations of innocence etc THEN claim the 5th.

I'm hearing the federal court in that district has precedent that if applied says Lerner has effectively waived her 5th amendment rights.

I believe what happens next is up to Boehner, as it also has been.

INAL, but would guess if Boehner gives the OK, the House Repubs will try to get a ruling that Lerner waived her rights under the 5th can compel testimony under threat of jail. If that happens things could get interesting.

Fern

I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but it's my understanding that one can assert privilege at any point in testimony.

Issa 'versus' Cummings is heating up.

Cummings accused of lying in previous committee heearings etc:



http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/04...ith-irs-effort-to-target-true-the-vote-111723

http://washingtonexaminer.com/issa-...rs-targeting-of-true-the-vote/article/2547007

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...the-vote-to-democrat-elijah-cummings-n1822247

Documents etc from Cummings office to Lois Lerner: http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/FN-Combined.pdf

Cummings is now defending that contact as appropriate. It might be but he makes himself look bad by lying about it back in February.

Fern

Pretty obvious that the IRS has been and is functioning as the DNC's muscle. This is merely part and parcel.

 

[Bowfinger]

Issa 'versus' Cummings is heating up.

Cummings accused of lying in previous committee heearings etc:



http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/04...ith-irs-effort-to-target-true-the-vote-111723

http://washingtonexaminer.com/issa-...rs-targeting-of-true-the-vote/article/2547007

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...the-vote-to-democrat-elijah-cummings-n1822247

Documents etc from Cummings office to Lois Lerner: http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/FN-Combined.pdf

Cummings is now defending that contact as appropriate. It might be but he makes himself look bad by lying about it back in February.

Fern

I finally had a chance to review the linked video of the Mitchell and Cummings exchange. I'm sure it will surprise nobody familiar with the tactics of the propaganda sites linked above to learn that they've cherry-picked one small part of that exchange, out of context, to create a dishonest impression. Mitchell made several accusations against Cummings, including claiming he misrepresented his authority and role on that committee. That is what Cummings responded to, denying this and pointing out that he sent copies of all of his communications to Issa (so it wasn't something Cummings was trying to conceal from the committee). I cannot verify Cummings was being truthful about that, but nobody on the committee challenged it.

The videos do clearly show, however, that Cummings did not deny contacting the IRS for more information about True the Vote. On the contrary, he openly and directly acknowledged it. Therefore, it is once again the wing-nut propaganda machine that is lying, unless there is earlier evidence they somehow neglected to cite in the stories linked above.

 

[Bowfinger]

Here's CNN's take on the battle between Issa and Cummings:

Issa accuses Democratic counterpart of obstructing IRS investigation

(CNN) -- Just when it seems impossible for things to get uglier between the two heads of a key House investigative committee, they have.

Hours after Democrat Elijah Cummings accused House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa of engaging in "McCarthyism," Issa shot back with a letter to Cummings accusing him of obstructing the committee's IRS investigation, and even contributing to the agency's targeting of conservative grass roots groups.
[ ... ]
Cummings points out that he only requested public information from the IRS, and that he posted his inquiry to True to the Vote on his website -- so he wasn't hiding anything.

"I have made no secret of my concern about True the Vote's political activities," wrote Cummings.

Cummings argues that in the case of True the Vote, there was legitimate concern about IRS granting tax-exempt status, since the group had given $5,000 to a state Republican organization, which tax-exempt groups are banned from doing. ...

Cummings' claim about requesting only public information is corroborated by the emails released, and contradicts the right's allegations about confidential information. If Cummings truly posted his communications on his web site (not verified), that would pretty conclusively refute Issa's allegations about secret contact.

 

[Bowfinger]

Just checking around to see what's new in the Issa circus. Here are some of the highlights (or lowlights):

Fox is butt-hurt because none of the other Sunday politics shows shared Fox's obsession with this show: http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/04/1...d-nbcs-sunday-shows-ignore-latest-irs-scandal

Politico has a piece explaining why the GOP's case against Lerner isn't nearly as strong as they pretend: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/gop-vs-irss-lois-lerner-the-breakdown-105626.html

Finally, the Washington Post has an op-ed column suggesting Democrats' attempts to portray Issa as a modern McCarthy miss the mark: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...b95134-c189-11e3-b574-f8748871856a_story.html

Enjoy.

 

[Bowfinger]

Here are a couple of pieces about the IRS' attempt to revise its rules to more clearly define what social welfare organizations are allowed to do. Personally, I agree they tax-exempt organizations should not be allowed to engage in any political activities. Even if we accept the fiction the money is speech, there's no reason we have to give that "speech" tax-exempt privileges, let alone secrecy.

From the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...d-by-irs-plan-to-revise-draft-nonprofit-rule/

The head of the Internal Revenue Service this week signaled that his agency will re-write proposed new limits on the political activities of nonprofit advocacy groups, quelling concerns from the left about overreach but failing to win over conservatives.

Lawmakers and policy analysts on both sides of the political spectrum have voiced opposition to the draft guidelines, which would prohibit tax-exempt organizations from engaging in certain election-related activities including voter-registration and get-out-the-vote drives. ...

An op-ed from Bloomberg: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-04-13/get-the-irs-out-of-politics-mostly

If the public flogging of former Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner makes anything clear, it's that the IRS should stay out of politics. So why do so many Republicans and Democrats oppose a change that would help make that possible?

Last week House Republicans referred Lerner to the Justice Department for possible prosecution. Her crime, in their eyes, was giving extra scrutiny to groups applying for 501(c)(4) status with phrases such as “Tea Party” in their names. Never mind that the agency also scrutinized, if to a lesser degree, groups with words such as “progressive” in their names. The essential point is that the agency should not be in such a politically fraught position to begin with.

The problem is that the law itself is vague. IRS regulations allow 501(c)(4) organizations formed for social-welfare purposes, which do not have to disclose their donors, to engage in political activity provided that such activity is not their “primary” purpose. But the IRS has never defined what “primary” means, causing wildly divergent interpretations to take root. In the absence of regulatory clarity, the amount of anonymous (or, to be conspiratorial about it, secret) money flowing into elections has exploded.

Crossroads GPS, co-founded by Karl Rove, spent $70 million in 2012. Americans for Prosperity, co-founded by the Koch brothers, spent $33 million. A liberal group, Patriot Majority USA, which advocates for “comprehensive campaign finance reform that increases transparency,” spent $9 million. None disclosed their donors, claiming that they exist primarily to promote social welfare, not politics. That does not pass the laugh test. ...

 

[Bowfinger]

Here's a bit of good news. Apparently the Justice Department was (is?) considering criminal prosecution of groups that lied on their IRS application. I just hope it hasn't been deterred by the GOP's persecution theatrics. If you commit fraud, you deserve to be prosecuted, Republican or Democrat.

Here's the story, from USA Today: http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2014/04/16/irs-tea-party-justice-department-whitehouse/

The very day before IRS official Lois Lerner made her fateful apology for the targeting of Tea Party groups last year, the IRS and the Justice Department were in early talks to investigate tax-exempt political groups for possible fraud.

The director of the Justice Department’s Election Crimes Branch, Richard Pilger, called Lerner on May 8, newly released documents show. Pilger was looking into whether the Justice Department “could piece together false statement cases about applicants who ‘lied’ on their (Form) 1024s — saying they weren’t planning on doing political activity, and then turning around and making large visible political expenditures.”

The next day, the chief of staff for the IRS commissioner, Nikole Flax, wrote Lerner back: “I think we should do it.”
[ ... ]
But Democrats say there were actually two scandals at the IRS. “The IRS was going about targeting these organizations in a very boneheaded way,” said Seth Larson, communications director for Whitehouse. But the Tea Party controversy has also caused the IRS to take its eye off what Whitehouse says is a greater scandal: “These organizations were lying to the IRS and getting away with it,” Larson said. ...

Here's another from the Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/...ficial-lerner-talked-with-justice-department/

Former Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner talked with Justice Department officials about seeking criminal prosecutions of tax-exempt groups that didn’t fully disclose their political activities, according to emails released on Wednesday. The conservative-leaning Judicial Watch said it got the documents through a Freedom of Information Act request.
[ ... ]
Ms. Lerner’s lawyer, William Taylor III, said “It was the responsibility of the Exempt Organizations Division to assess whether organizations which were seeking or had been granted tax exempt status did not violate the restrictions on political activity.” He added: “It ought not to be a surprise that Ms. Lerner had discussions with colleagues about how best to enforce those restrictions.” ...

I suspect that's what this so-called scandal is really about: creating a smoke screen to draw attention from political advocacy groups that were flouting the law.

 

[Incorruptible]

Here's a bit of good news. Apparently the Justice Department was (is?) considering criminal prosecution of groups that lied on their IRS application. I just hope it hasn't been deterred by the GOP's persecution theatrics. If you commit fraud, you deserve to be prosecuted, Republican or Democrat.

Here's the story, from USA Today: http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2014/04/16/irs-tea-party-justice-department-whitehouse/
Here's another from the Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/...ficial-lerner-talked-with-justice-department/
I suspect that's what this so-called scandal is really about: creating a smoke screen to draw attention from political advocacy groups that were flouting the law.

Wrong. So it was alright for the IRS to ask them about their members personal information and Bible preferences? Only a leftist hack would defend the IRS.

 

[piasabird]

Go ahead and appoint a special prosecuting attorney. Both the IRS and Congress were abusing their power and then tying to lie about it. Charge them both with obstruction of justice. Kick the fathead out of office until after the trial. Then lets hire more IRS agents so they can harass innocent tax payers.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but it's my understanding that one can assert privilege at any point in testimony.

It happens in every cop shop across America on a very regular basis, I'm sure, and in grand juries, as well.

Realistically, the chances of the DoJ prosecuting Lerner for contempt of congress are zero, anyway, something Issa obviously knows.

If he wants her testimony, he'll quit posturing & pandering, grant immunity, hear what she has to say.

Fat chance, huh?

 

[Bowfinger]

Go ahead and appoint a special prosecuting attorney. Both the IRS and Congress were abusing their power and then tying to lie about it. Charge them both with obstruction of justice. Kick the fathead out of office until after the trial. Then lets hire more IRS agents so they can harass innocent tax payers.

You realize you haven't the faintest clue what you're babbling about, right?

 

[Bowfinger]

It happens in every cop shop across America on a very regular basis, I'm sure, and in grand juries, as well.

Realistically, the chances of the DoJ prosecuting Lerner for contempt of congress are zero, anyway, something Issa obviously knows.

If he wants her testimony, he'll quit posturing & pandering, grant immunity, hear what she has to say.

Fat chance, huh?

I read that the last time Congress tried to arrest people for contempt was during the McCarthy proceedings. Zero of them held up in court. (But I've not verified this.)

 

[werepossum]

Here's a bit of good news. Apparently the Justice Department was (is?) considering criminal prosecution of groups that lied on their IRS application. I just hope it hasn't been deterred by the GOP's persecution theatrics. If you commit fraud, you deserve to be prosecuted, Republican or Democrat.

Here's the story, from USA Today: http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2014/04/16/irs-tea-party-justice-department-whitehouse/
Here's another from the Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/...ficial-lerner-talked-with-justice-department/
I suspect that's what this so-called scandal is really about: creating a smoke screen to draw attention from political advocacy groups that were flouting the law.

How very clever of the conservatives to convince Lerner to stop all conservative applications (yes, and three progressive applications) to give them the opportunity to make a smoke screen. How very lucky for you that, as always, conservatives are to blame even when proggies apologize for doing something wrong.

It happens in every cop shop across America on a very regular basis, I'm sure, and in grand juries, as well.

Realistically, the chances of the DoJ prosecuting Lerner for contempt of congress are zero, anyway, something Issa obviously knows.

If he wants her testimony, he'll quit posturing & pandering, grant immunity, hear what she has to say.

Fat chance, huh?

There is zero chance that Lerner is going to testify before a Republican-led committee without immunity. Everyone knows this. Her protestations to the contrary are no different from any criminal's protestations of innocence that darn it, just can't be explained at the moment.

Perhaps in a few years she and O.J. can look together for the real killer and the real culprit behind the IRS scandal.

Sorry, the IRS Republican smoke screen.

 

[Jhhnn]

There is zero chance that Lerner is going to testify before a Republican-led committee without immunity. Everyone knows this. Her protestations to the contrary are no different from any criminal's protestations of innocence that darn it, just can't be explained at the moment.

Perhaps in a few years she and O.J. can look together for the real killer and the real culprit behind the IRS scandal.

Shameless character assassination lacking any proof whatsoever.

 

[Jhhnn]

You realize you haven't the faintest clue what you're babbling about, right?

Yeh, but he's totally in character.

 

[Bowfinger]

How very clever of the conservatives to convince Lerner to stop all conservative applications (yes, and three progressive applications) to give them the opportunity to make a smoke screen. ...

You're lying again, misrepresenting the facts to fit your RNC-issued talking points. Good booyyyyyy. Maybe they'll toss you a bone.

 

[Bowfinger]

The head of the IRS confirms they are pressing ahead with new rules to clarify limitations on political activity for tax-exempt organizations: http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...69de2e-c593-11e3-bf7a-be01a9b69cf1_story.html

The Internal Revenue Service is forging ahead with plans to develop new rules limiting the political activities of tax-exempt groups, despite pressure from conservatives to abandon the effort, the agency’s director said Wednesday

“My bottom line is that it’s in everyone’s interest to have clarification,” IRS Commissioner John Koskinen said in an interview with The Washington Post. “My position since I started more than four months ago is that we ought to have clarity, and that any rule that comes out ought to be fair and easy to administer.” ...

Good.

 

[Jhhnn]

The head of the IRS confirms they are pressing ahead with new rules to clarify limitations on political activity for tax-exempt organizations: http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...69de2e-c593-11e3-bf7a-be01a9b69cf1_story.html
Good.

Billionaire Conservative spenders have long exploited rules that are vague & impossible to administer, so they're bound to be a little upset.

 

[Bowfinger]

Billionaire Conservative spenders have long exploited rules that are vague & impossible to administer, so they're bound to be a little upset.

They aren't used to being constrained by laws. Laws are for the rabble, not the elite. I do find it amusing that the Justice Department email about prosecuting fraudulent applications was party neutral, yet the wing-nut media is apoplectic because they just KNOW!!! this means conservative groups. The same goes for the IRS announcement that it's going to update the regulations restricting political activity by non-profits. To me it shows that for all their denial, Republicans know full well it has been mostly right-wing groups like Rove's that have been defying the law.

 

[werepossum]

They aren't used to being constrained by laws. Laws are for the rabble, not the elite. I do find it amusing that the Justice Department email about prosecuting fraudulent applications was party neutral, yet the wing-nut media is apoplectic because they just KNOW!!! this means conservative groups. The same goes for the IRS announcement that it's going to update the regulations restricting political activity by non-profits. To me it shows that for all their denial, Republicans know full well it has been mostly right-wing groups like Rove's that have been defying the law.

Republicans know full well that the IRS has been and will continue to be acting as the DNC's muscle.

 

[Bowfinger]

Republican sheep have been brainwashed into believing that the IRS has been and will continue to be acting as the DNC's muscle.

Fixed. The usual rubes have been conned yet again by a relentless propaganda campaign from the nutter disinformation bubble and professional liars like Issa. Their lies have been exposed again and again, yet like a battered wife, the rubes keep coming back for more. You, yourself, have continued to misrepresent basic facts in the story in spite of being corrected multiple times. It shows just how strong cognitive dissonance can be, how faith can blind one to contradictory fact. I feel sad for you all.