The Benghazi Story goes critical

[woolfe9998]

They did not say "we found no evidence [that anything criminal happened]." They said “we found no evidence ... that would support a criminal prosecution” There is a BIG difference. THAT is what is being misrepresented here. It's carefully worded.

In a court of law, every single piece of evidence which tends to prove one side's position "supports" that position, even if in and of itself it isn't sufficient to ensure victory. When one says "I found no evidence to support a case" it means they found no evidence, period. I know what you think it means - that they don't have enough evidence to get a conviction, but that isn't a likely interpretation of the statement. It's just what you want to believe.

Yet even if the statement is somehow quantitative rather than qualitative, it says "a prosecution" not a conviction. The quantity of evidence you need to prosecute is only that of probable cause, which is less than even the civil standard of preponderance of the evidence. If they're saying there is no probable cause then they're saying there is little to no evidence. This interpretation would allow for them to have some sort of evidence, but not very much. And it's not the best interpretation. The best interpretation is that it means literally zero. Either way the statement leaves you with very little to work with.

 

[K7SN]

They did not say "we found no evidence [that anything criminal happened]." They said “we found no evidence ... that would support a criminal prosecution” There is a BIG difference. THAT is what is being misrepresented here. It's carefully worded.

I suggest you and woolfe9998 look a little deeper; you'll find more fodder for your arguments. Try this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy

I love the phrases about how Lerner - "She spent twenty tears at the FEC" which is an obvious Wiki mistake. Don't believe everything you read in left, right or even Wikipedia. Something as polemic as this would have been challenged if the Wikipedia entry was well documented however. I'll wait three days to correct that Wiki typo so any interested can beat me to the punch.

Besides referenced words such as "Tea Party", "Patriots", or "9/12 Project", they targeted "progressive," "occupy," "Israel," "open source software," "medical marijuana" and "occupied territory advocacy" in the case file.

I've been involved with a 501(c) company for over 40 years and if we were targeted for any words in our name I would be very upset. If suspect someone like Koch or Clinton (Put those in the same sentence) would be concerned and move heaven and earth to squash an investigation aimed at abuses of 501(c) privileges if I was funding Third-Party.

Instead of focusing on Lerner - look at Congress who tasked the IRS to investigate this.

Look at the United States Supreme Court's 1958 ruling in NAACP v. Alabama, when the Court held that disclosure of names could render private donors vulnerable to retaliation

Look at the misuse of 501(c)(4) attributed to Third Party election advertising, including the labor unions for the Dems. Quote below is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy which quotes The New York Times report:

Nonprofit organizations dedicated to social welfare are not required to apply for IRS certification in order to operate under Section 501(c)(4) tax exemption rules.[20][21] However, being certified by the IRS can help organizations attract more donations and provide some protection against further scrutiny.[22]

In 2013, examples of 501(c)(4) groups included Organizing for Action, organized to promote President Obama's legislative priorities,[23] and the conservative advocacy organization Crossroads GPS, founded in part by Karl Rove.[24][Note 1]

Why didn't they target Organizing for Action? My conclusion; this is just typical Washington politics - your party's turds don't smell and the other party's turd's smell putrid. Those most successful at flaunting the IRS rules squeal loudly when they think they may be exposed. Those not as successful also squeal because they didn't fair as well in rule-breaking; the also squeal loudly. Who wins; the media - who loses - the taxpayer.

Below more another quote - emphasis added by this poster. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy

Almost all of the biggest players among third-party groups, in terms of buying television time in House and Senate races since August, have been 501(c) organizations, and their purchases have heavily favored Republicans....

They include 501(c)(4) "social welfare" organizations, like Crossroads, which has been the top spender on Senate races, and Americans for Prosperity, another pro-Republican group that has been the leader on the House side; 501(c)(5) labor unions, which have been supporting Democrats; and 501(c)(6) trade associations, like the United States Chamber of Commerce, which has been spending heavily in support of Republicans.[33] .
​

 

[CZroe]

Seems like a pretty straightforward statement to my eyes.

"Our investigation uncovered substantial evidence of mismanagement, poor judgment and institutional inertia, leading to the belief by many tax-exempt applicants that the IRS targeted them based on their political viewpoints,” Kadzik wrote. “But poor judgment is not a crime. We found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt or other inappropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution. We also found no evidence that any official involved in the handling of tax-exempt applications or IRS leadership attempted to obstruct justice. Based on the evidence developed in this investigation and the recommendation of experienced career prosecutors and supervising attorneys at the Department, we are closing our investigation and will not seek any criminal charges.”

http://www.accountingtoday.com/news...scandal-without-criminal-charges-76198-1.html

"Our investigation uncovered substantial evidence of ... institutional inertia..."
Just what do you think it means by "institutional inertia?"

They found no evidence criminally linking any particular individual to that, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen and that there was no evidence that it happened. They specifically states that they have "substantial evidence" that it happened.

In a court of law, every single piece of evidence which tends to prove one side's position "supports" that position, even if in and of itself it isn't sufficient to ensure victory. When one says "I found no evidence to support a case" it means they found no evidence, period. I know what you think it means - that they don't have enough evidence to get a conviction, but that isn't a likely interpretation of the statement. It's just what you want to believe.

Yet even if the statement is somehow quantitative rather than qualitative, it says "a prosecution" not a conviction. The quantity of evidence you need to prosecute is only that of probable cause, which is less than even the civil standard of preponderance of the evidence. If they're saying there is no probable cause then they're saying there is little to no evidence. This interpretation would allow for them to have some sort of evidence, but not very much. And it's not the best interpretation. The best interpretation is that it means literally zero. Either way the statement leaves you with very little to work with.

Emmett Till was lynched. I found no evidence linking the lynching of Emmett Till to you. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT EMMETT TILL WAS LYNCHED.

By your logic, because I couldn't finger someone specific, like you, there is "no evidence period" that anything happened to Emmett Till. If you don't have a defendant, what good does a probable cause do? You can't just prosecute without a defendant.

When one says "I found no evidence to support a case" it means they found no evidence, period."
Except that's not what they said. They found "substantial evidence of...institutional inertia.

They made it clear that what they didn't find was "evidence that any official involved in the handling of tax-exempt applications or IRS leadership attempted to obstruct justice." They didn't have anyone to prosecute. ALL THAT MEANS IS THAT THEY COULDN'T IMPLICATE SOMEONE SPECIFIC.

This happens all the time. Despite bodies and evidence of illicit activity, when they don't have evidence to use against Al Capone, he doesn't get prosecuted. It doesn't mean no one in Al Capone's organization did anything wrong.

 

[Jhhnn]

"Our investigation uncovered substantial evidence of ... institutional inertia..."
Just what do you think it means by "institutional inertia?"

They found no evidence criminally linking any particular individual to that, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen and that there was no evidence that it happened. They specifically states that they have "substantial evidence" that it happened.


Emmett Till was lynched. I found no evidence linking the lynching of Emmett Till to you. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT EMMETT TILL WAS LYNCHED.

By your logic, because I couldn't finger someone specific, like you, there is "no evidence period" that anything happened to Emmett Till. If you don't have a defendant, what good does a probable cause do? You can't just prosecute without a defendant.

When one says "I found no evidence to support a case" it means they found no evidence, period."
Except that's not what they said. They found "substantial evidence of...institutional inertia.

They made it clear that what they didn't find was "evidence that any official involved in the handling of tax-exempt applications or IRS leadership attempted to obstruct justice." They didn't have anyone to prosecute. ALL THAT MEANS IS THAT THEY COULDN'T IMPLICATE SOMEONE SPECIFIC.

This happens all the time. Despite bodies and evidence of illicit activity, when they don't have evidence to use against Al Capone, he doesn't get prosecuted. It doesn't mean no one in Al Capone's organization did anything wrong.

Nice false analogy. It's clear that a crime occurred when dead bodies are found hanging in trees. It's not clear when 501(c)4 applications are given scrutiny.

It's unclear why you want to discuss the IRS "scandal" in a Benghazi "scandal" thread other than to perhaps illustrate that they're interconnected Repub bullshit.

 

[CZroe]

Nice false analogy. It's clear that a crime occurred when dead bodies are found hanging in trees. It's not clear when 501(c)4 applications are given scrutiny.

It's unclear why you want to discuss the IRS "scandal" in a Benghazi "scandal" thread other than to perhaps illustrate that they're interconnected Repub bullshit.

I'm responding to others dragging it into this thread (among other places) and misrepresenting what was said. It's sickening. "No evidence period."

 

[fskimospy]

I'm responding to others dragging it into this thread (among other places) and misrepresenting what was said. It's sickening. "No evidence period."

You're really reaching. The DOJ statement was pretty unequivocal. You're trying to find ways to convince yourself it wasn't.

 

[CZroe]

You're really reaching. The DOJ statement was pretty unequivocal. You're trying to find ways to convince yourself it wasn't.

You're right: It says what I said it said... unequivocally. The entire statement was from the perspective of potential litigation of INDIVIDUALS within the IRS and other directing agencies. It did not say that nothing happened. It specifically said that there was "substantial evidence of institutional inertia," which is exactly what this was always all about. Now we have people in this thread saying that it means that targeting never happened at all and that it completely exonerates everything despite it being critical of the "bad management" that led to these things.

Everyone is reading what they want and I have a problem with that.

 

[fskimospy]

You're right: It says what I said it said... unequivocally. The entire statement was from the perspective of potential litigation of INDIVIDUALS within the IRS and other directing agencies. It did not say that nothing happened. It specifically said that there was "substantial evidence of institutional inertia," which is exactly what this was always all about.

Except that had the targeting been purposeful as so many have alleged there WOULD be evidence to act against individuals.

Now we have people in this thread saying that it means that targeting never happened at all and that it completely exonerates everything despite it being critical of the "bad management" that led to these things.

Everyone is reading what they want and I have a problem with that.

Yes, people are saying that deliberate targeting of conservative organizations due to them being conservative didn't happen because that's what the DOJ said. People should just read the report and not try to put their own thoughts in it.

It's basically a report that says the IRS did some dumb things but the accusations of partisan targeting were totally meritless. We should just accept that, move on, and hope that conservatives are more cautious in the future before they declare a conspiracy against themselves.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm responding to others dragging it into this thread (among other places) and misrepresenting what was said. It's sickening. "No evidence period."

I just take this statement at face value-

We found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt or other inappropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution. We also found no evidence that any official involved in the handling of tax-exempt applications or IRS leadership attempted to obstruct justice.

You take the attitude that just because they didn't find anything doesn't mean there isn't anything thus impugning the integrity & expertise of honest investigators. While that is true, it's not reasonable, either, & is the basis for all conspiracy theory.

I don't blame the IRS for digging into what they saw as an organized tax avoidance money laundering scheme being operated right on the ragged edge of the law. It's their job to find out if the perps are crossing the line. The IRS was mistaken in their choice of methodology.

 

[Victorian Gray]

"Our investigation uncovered substantial evidence of ... institutional inertia..."
Just what do you think it means by "institutional inertia?"

They found no evidence criminally linking any particular individual to that, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen and that there was no evidence that it happened. They specifically states that they have "substantial evidence" that it happened.


Emmett Till was lynched. I found no evidence linking the lynching of Emmett Till to you. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT EMMETT TILL WAS LYNCHED.

By your logic, because I couldn't finger someone specific, like you, there is "no evidence period" that anything happened to Emmett Till. If you don't have a defendant, what good does a probable cause do? You can't just prosecute without a defendant.



They made it clear that what they didn't find was "evidence that any official involved in the handling of tax-exempt applications or IRS leadership attempted to obstruct justice." They didn't have anyone to prosecute. ALL THAT MEANS IS THAT THEY COULDN'T IMPLICATE SOMEONE SPECIFIC.

This happens all the time. Despite bodies and evidence of illicit activity, when they don't have evidence to use against Al Capone, he doesn't get prosecuted. It doesn't mean no one in Al Capone's organization did anything wrong.

And just what is the meaning of the word 'is'?

 

[ivwshane]

Anyone else think of this scene while trying to explain the situation to czroe?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i0GW0Vnr9Yc

 

[woolfe9998]

"Our investigation uncovered substantial evidence of ... institutional inertia..."
Just what do you think it means by "institutional inertia?"

They found no evidence criminally linking any particular individual to that, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen and that there was no evidence that it happened. They specifically states that they have "substantial evidence" that it happened.


Emmett Till was lynched. I found no evidence linking the lynching of Emmett Till to you. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT EMMETT TILL WAS LYNCHED.

By your logic, because I couldn't finger someone specific, like you, there is "no evidence period" that anything happened to Emmett Till. If you don't have a defendant, what good does a probable cause do? You can't just prosecute without a defendant.

That analogy only holds if it is self-evident that a crime was committed, even if we don't know who the perpetrator is. Like finding a dead body where the cause of death appears to be foul play. How and why is that a correct analogy here? You're presuming there was something criminal going on here.

What precisely was criminal and why is it self-evident that someone must have committed a crime?

 

[Meghan54]

"Our investigation uncovered substantial evidence of ... institutional inertia..."
Just what do you think it means by "institutional inertia?"

They found no evidence criminally linking any particular individual to that, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen and that there was no evidence that it happened. They specifically states that they have "substantial evidence" that it happened.

I've got to ask.....just what do YOU think institutional inertia is?

It certainly isn't illegal. It's something that has had numerous research papers and more than a few books written about the concept. And most bureaucracies suffer from some amount of institutional inertia, as well as most large companies/corps.

But there is nothing illegal for a corp/company/bureaucracy to suffer from inertia.

 

[CZroe]

Anyone else think of this scene while trying to explain the situation to czroe?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i0GW0Vnr9Yc

I'm glad you care.

That analogy only holds if it is self-evident that a crime was committed, even if we don't know who the perpetrator is. Like finding a dead body where the cause of death appears to be foul play. How and why is that a correct analogy here? You're presuming there was something criminal going on here.

What precisely was criminal and why is it self-evident that someone must have committed a crime?

There is plenty of evidence that institutional inertia led to unfair targeting of NPOs with certain political names. They said so themselves ("substantial evidence"). There is not plenty of evidence that it was intentionally directed, coordinated, or engineered for political reasons. That is to be expected where a person is innocent or where a person has simply covered their tracks well enough. It is the goal of every criminal to get away with it and, thus, it does not mean that nothing criminal happened.

Pleading the fifth and destroying drives can't legally be considered evidence unless laws were broken to do it. That's why Lois Lerner is safe, but using these words to claim that nothing ever happened while the words themselves said something did happen (in the same breath) is misleading.

 

[CZroe]

I've got to ask.....just what do YOU think institutional inertia is?

It certainly isn't illegal. It's something that has had numerous research papers and more than a few books written about the concept. And most bureaucracies suffer from some amount of institutional inertia, as well as most large companies/corps.

But there is nothing illegal for a corp/company/bureaucracy to suffer from inertia.

Both words have plain English meanings that are perfectly clear in context. No one corrected it. They were on a roll. Keyword-based targeting continued. People were probably even rewarded for doing their jobs well ("institutional"). It led to this situation. The snowball continued rolling ("inertia").

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm glad you care.


There is plenty of evidence that institutional inertia led to unfair targeting of NPOs with certain political names. They said so themselves ("substantial evidence"). There is not plenty of evidence that it was intentionally directed, coordinated, or engineered for political reasons. That is to be expected where a person is innocent or where a person has simply covered their tracks well enough. It is the goal of every criminal to get away with it and, thus, it does not mean that nothing criminal happened.

Pleading the fifth and destroying drives can't legally be considered evidence unless laws were broken to do it. That's why Lois Lerner is safe, but using these words to claim that nothing ever happened while the words themselves said something did happen (in the same breath) is misleading.

And right back around to the presumption of conspiracy w/o proof. But, by God, there must be some so you'll dig to the center of the earth to find it, right?

It wouldn't surprise me if IRS folks are disgruntled w/ Repubs. Repubs insist on budget cuts yet on the other insist on inundating them with requests for tax exempt status for what really are political rather than public service organizations while making enormous demands on them for record keeping & information requests. A person might think that Repubs don't want them to do their job, collecting taxes, but rather fritter away their resources providing fuel for a witch hunt.

 

[CZroe]

And right back around to the presumption of conspiracy w/o proof. But, by God, there must be some so you'll dig to the center of the earth to find it, right?

It wouldn't surprise me if IRS folks are disgruntled w/ Repubs. Repubs insist on budget cuts yet on the other insist on inundating them with requests for tax exempt status for what really are political rather than public service organizations while making enormous demands on them for record keeping & information requests. A person might think that Repubs don't want them to do their job, collecting taxes, but rather fritter away their resources providing fuel for a witch hunt.

I said "That is to be expected where a person is innocent or where a person has simply covered their tracks well enough." How is that a presumption of conspiracy? You simply can't get it through your mind that the problem is unfair targeting. Whether or not someone can be prosecuted for it or the "institutional inertia" formed without a criminal act, stop denying that there was no evidence for the "institutional inertia." The "institutional inertia" happened. They admit it. Why can't you?

The only question was if it was intentional/criminal. THAT is the only part lacking evidence, which is why they said they can't find any evidence "that would support a criminal prosecution." Using their statement to deny their own finding of "institutional inertia" is laughable. EVEN THEN, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Using their statement as "proof" that nothing happened is a laughable way to misconstrue what they actually said.

Get it through your thick brain that...
A) Pointing out what they actually said
...and...
B) Correcting people who misconstrue it
...and...
C) Pointing out that multiple possibilities still exist (INCLUDING complete innocence)
...does not mean "ZOMG! CONSPIRACY! LOIS LERNER DID IT!!!!!!!!1111!!11oneoneone"

I either have to ignore logic and subscribe to your group-think misinterpretation of the statements or I am a conspiracy nutter.

X != X+1

 

[Bowfinger]

... the problem is unfair targeting. ...

How was it unfair? Inappropriate, yes, but the TIGTA investigation found the majority of targeted applications did, in fact, show evidence of substantial political activity warranting further review.

... they said they can't find any evidence "that would support a criminal prosecution."

They said much more than that, if you bother to read the whole letter/report. Even Republicans within the IRS and employees critical of Lerner's organization agreed there was no partisan intent.

Using their statement to deny their own finding of "institutional inertia" is laughable. EVEN THEN, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. ...

What "it" do you mean? I don't remember Issa, or any of his faithful flock, wailing about institutional inertia. They asserted again and again that this was willful, criminal targeting. They continued to push that claim even as one investigation after another found no evidence to support it. Now that the DoJ has weighed in too, it is transparently disingenuous to suddenly shift the goal posts. It's time to accept reality.

 

[Jhhnn]

One of the more interesting things about the right wing perspective on the IRS scandal is that they never want to start at the beginning whch is the tax scam Repubs have been running w/ political 501(c)4 organizations masquerading as social welfare organizations.

In that, big donors pool their money then sanitize & anonymize it through a series of trusts, institutes & so forth to finally deliver it to anti-tax allegedly social welfare groups all across the country. They already have the script. It's really paid political speech that would otherwise be taxable. It's "perfectly legal" in the most weaselish terms & has been going on for years but they buried the IRS under requests in 2011.

So the IRS wanted to take a closer look at it, not because it's Republicans but because it skirts the edge of the law & may or may not be over the line depending on the instance. Since it's mostly a Repub trick, they got targeted more than others.

The IRS just went about it the wrong way & have admitted to such.

The reason Repubs jumped on it so hard is that they really like the sweet racket they've been running, one where guys like Charles Koch can claim he doesn't spend money on politics but rather anonymously on blatantly dishonest political groups masquerading as public interest entities. They also like the way it makes the Tea Party look more like grassroots than the far right astroturf it really is.

Now that the Repub party has been held hostage by the Teahadis for some while they might want to reconsider their support for existing rules about public interest group funding. Their own radicals have used it to great effect to bite them right in the ass.

 

[Zorkorist]

Isn't there another thread about the IRS scandal? Doesn't really have anything to do with Hilary's Benghazi Scandal.

-John

 

[geekforaweek]

Benghazi is the drama we never forget

 

[Zorkorist]

As long as Hillary Clinton, walks the earth, there will be Benghazi. She failed the people at that embassy, and contributed to their deaths. When she realized she failed them, she conceived a lie, to cover it up.

She is everything that is the worst of a person.

-John

 

[feralkid]

As long as Hillary Clinton, walks the earth, there will be Benghazi. She failed the people at that embassy, and contributed to their deaths. When she realized she failed them, she conceived a lie, to cover it up.

She is everything that is the worst of a person.

-John

That's just how she looks from inside the bubble. Or in your case, bottle.

 

[zinfamous]

As long as Hillary Clinton, walks the earth, there will be Benghazi. She failed the people at that embassy, and contributed to their deaths. When she realized she failed them, she conceived a lie, to cover it up.

She is everything that is the worst of a person.

-John

I weep for your liver.

 

[zinfamous]

Isn't there another thread about the IRS scandal? Doesn't really have anything to do with Hilary's Benghazi Scandal.

-John

lol. it's the same thing, tho!