Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Two Democrats call for investigation of IRS watchdog who led targeting probe

3 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2014/02/07/two-democrats-call-for-investigation-of-irs-watchdog-who-led-targeting-probe/?tid=pm_politics_pop

"Two House Democrats on Thursday called for an investigation of a federal auditor who accused the Internal Revenue Service of gross mismanagement and targeting advocacy groups for extra scrutiny based on their names and policy positions.

Reps. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) and Matt Cartwright (D-Penn.) on Wednesday filed a complaint with a special watchdog council questioning the independence of Treasury Department inspector general J. Russell George.

The congressmen, both of whom serve as top Democrats on House oversight committees, said George produced a “fundamentally flawed performance audit” that was “incomplete” and “outright misleading.” They also alleged that he held briefings with Republican members of the House Oversight Committee without the knowledge of Democrats on the panel.

George on Thursday stood behind the findings of his review but declined to comment about the meeting allegations, which were explained to him in an interview with the Washington Post. He said he may soon issue a formal response to the accusations.

The inspector general’s report, released in May, said the IRS “used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status.” Earlier that month, then-IRS official Lois Lerner alluded to the findings when she acknowledged in response to a planted question that the agency had targeted groups with “tea party” and “patriot” in their names.
George’s audit led to public outrage, six federal probes and a leadership shakeup at the IRS. It also prompted the Treasury Department to draft a new guideline to distinguish what types of political activities disqualify groups from tax-exempt status.

Supporters of the recommended rule change say it would set clearer boundaries and help IRS employees understand which applicants to reject. But many Republicans have opposed the recommendation, saying it could hinder groups from free speech.

MORE: New IRS rules add both clarity and confusion about the role of advocacy groups in politics

The complaint against George follows a letter Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) and Connolly sent to George suggesting that he had narrowed the scope of his IRS review after agreeing to hold one-party meetings with Republicans staff on the House Oversight Committee, headed by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.). Cummings is ranking member of the panel, while Connolly is the top Democrat on one of its subcommittees.

The letter asked George to hand over documents from his office relating to defining the limits of the audit. It also asked the inspector general to avoid meetings that would exclude Democrats and provide Democratic staff with the briefings they missed.

Critics of the IRS report say the audit focused too much on an a “be on the lookout” list that targeted groups with conservative names, while ignoring older lists that contained terms associated with progressive themes. Republicans have used the report to attack the Obama administration.

Karen Kraushaar, a spokeswoman for the inspector general’s office, defended the review on Thursday, saying it “looked at the entire process of how the IRS was reviewing 501(c)(4)s,” otherwise known as social welfare groups.
George added: “We noted there were other ‘be on the lookout’ lists that included other types of organizations, but that was not the initial charge of the review and not the focus.”

Connolly and Cartwright sent their complaint on Thursday to three members of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. The recipients were: Joseph Campbell, a top official with the FBI’s criminal investigation division; Beth Colbert, deputy director of management for the White House Office of Management and Budget; and Department of Agriculture Inspector General Phyllis Fong.

The council, known as CIGIE, serves as a watchdog for the inspectors general community. George is a member of the group.

---------------------

So, Darrell Issa and J. Russell George (Bush holdover) cooked up this "scandal" behind closed doors, then "blew the whistle" on their own scheme.

Guest


Guest

Don't hate the messenger... It's long overdue

Markle

Markle

When are they going to give Lois Lerner immunity to testify after she illegally claimed the Fifth Amendment in her previous testimony? THAT'S when it will get interesting!

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Markle wrote:When are they going to give Lois Lerner immunity to testify after she illegally claimed the Fifth Amendment in her previous testimony?  THAT'S when it will get interesting!

She was following a directive by this Treasury official after his closed-door conference with Issa. The whole thing was BS from the beginning. A formal complaint has now been filed, because they're trying to pull the same charade with the PPACA. Desperation tactics. Pathetic.

Markle

Markle

Floridatexan wrote:
Markle wrote:When are they going to give Lois Lerner immunity to testify after she illegally claimed the Fifth Amendment in her previous testimony?  THAT'S when it will get interesting!

She was following a directive by this Treasury official after his closed-door conference with Issa.  The whole thing was BS from the beginning.  A formal complaint has now been filed, because they're trying to pull the same charade with the PPACA.  Desperation tactics.  Pathetic.



You mean the GOVERNMENT instructed a witness to plead the Fifth Amendment? It just gets better and better!

Guest


Guest

Amazing... who here doesn't want a full accounting of every step of this govt process?

Guest


Guest

Easy.....every liberal on this board.

Markle

Markle

Floridatexan wrote:
Markle wrote:When are they going to give Lois Lerner immunity to testify after she illegally claimed the Fifth Amendment in her previous testimony?  THAT'S when it will get interesting!

She was following a directive by this Treasury official after his closed-door conference with Issa.  The whole thing was BS from the beginning.  A formal complaint has now been filed, because they're trying to pull the same charade with the PPACA.  Desperation tactics.  Pathetic.

So the Democrats are WHITE and the Inspector General is BLACK.  No question, they're obviously RACISTS.

White Democrats Accuse Black IRS Inspector General of Being Pro-Tea Party


February 9, 2014 by Daniel Greenfield

Two Democrats call for investigation of IRS watchdog who led targeting probe RUSSELL-GEORGEIRSInspectorGeneral

No surprise. Our Progressive good friends sure are quiet when they blatantly flaunt their racism for others.



Last edited by Markle on 2/11/2014, 12:29 am; edited 1 time in total

Guest


Guest

Markle wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
Markle wrote:When are they going to give Lois Lerner immunity to testify after she illegally claimed the Fifth Amendment in her previous testimony?  THAT'S when it will get interesting!

She was following a directive by this Treasury official after his closed-door conference with Issa.  The whole thing was BS from the beginning.  A formal complaint has now been filed, because they're trying to pull the same charade with the PPACA.  Desperation tactics.  Pathetic.

So the Democrats are WHITE and the Inspector General is BLACK.  No question, they're obviously RACISTS.

White Democrats Accuse Black IRS Inspector General of Being Pro-Tea Party


February 9, 2014 by Daniel Greenfield

Two Democrats call for investigation of IRS watchdog who led targeting probe RUSSELL-GEORGEIRSInspectorGeneral

 cheers they only like blacks when they are under their service.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


I don't care if the guy was purple or green...he held closed-door partisan meetings with Issa to cook up a fake scandal...BTW, Markle, you really look stupid playing the race card.

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:
I don't care if the guy was purple or green...he held closed-door partisan meetings with Issa to cook up a fake scandal...BTW, Markle, you really look stupid playing the race card.

A fake scandal that was disclosed by lerner... who then took the fifth to avoid implication? How about the ig report? Then of course we have the doj naming an obama contributor to investigate? lol... it's amazing what a partisan hack can ignore.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Let's play a game.  We will all take turns posting organizations that were actually denied tax exempt status as a result of this "scandal".  

I'll go first: Maine chapter of Emerge America (progressive group)

Ok, who would like to go next?  Let's see how deep, exactly, this scandal goes!


_________________
I approve this message.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Fake? Lol

Yes...FAKE. A little complicated, but even you could understand it if you tried.

Guest


Guest

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/17/irs-tea-party-target-list-propaganda/2825003/

More than 80% of the organizations on the 2011 "political advocacy case" list were conservative,but the effort to police political activity also ensnared at least 11 liberal groups as of November 2011,including Progressives United,Progress Texas and Delawareans for Social and Economic Justice.

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/17/irs-tea-party-target-list-propaganda/2825003/

More than 80% of the organizations on the 2011 "political advocacy case" list were conservative,but the effort to police political activity also ensnared at least 11 liberal groups as of November 2011,including Progressives United,Progress Texas and Delawareans for Social and Economic Justice.


OK. So I have named one organization that was denied tax exempt status as a result of this "scandal", now it's your turn.


_________________
I approve this message.

Markle

Markle

boards of FL wrote:
PkrBum wrote:http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/17/irs-tea-party-target-list-propaganda/2825003/

More than 80% of the organizations on the 2011 "political advocacy case" list were conservative,but the effort to police political activity also ensnared at least 11 liberal groups as of November 2011,including Progressives United,Progress Texas and Delawareans for Social and Economic Justice.


OK.  So I have named one organization that was denied tax exempt status as a result of this "scandal", now it's your turn.

So you found ONE...wow, I'm impressed!

The IRS Scandal involved:

•At least 292 conservative groups targeted
•At least 5 pro-Israel groups targeted
•Constitutional groups targeted
•Groups that criticized Obama administration were targeted
•At least two pro-life groups targeted
•A Texas voting-rights group was targeted
•Conservative activists and businesses were targeted.
•At least one conservative Hispanic group was targeted
•IRS continued to target groups even after the scandal was exposed

The Obama FBI will not file charges against the IRS for targeting conservative groups.
The agency never once interviewed a single Tea Party group.
The WSJ.com reported:

The Journal reports that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is unlikely to file any criminal charges in the targeting of conservative political organizations by the Internal Revenue Service. Yet Cleta Mitchell, an attorney who represents many of the targets, says that the FBI has never contacted any of her clients to discuss their treatment at the hands of the IRS. “Shouldn’t law enforcement talk to the victims in an investigation?,” she asks in an email. “That’s like investigating a burglary without interviewing the burgled,” notes a Journal editorial.…

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/01/fbi-wont-file-charges-against-irs-for-targeting-conservatives-but-never-interviewed-a-single-tea-party-group/

Now please show me which one is not true!

boards of FL

boards of FL

Markle wrote:So you found ONE...wow, I'm impressed!


That's great, Markle.  So back to the game.  I have already named an organization that was denied tax exempt status as a result of this "scandal".  Now it is time for anyone else to name another organization.  So far I have had two replies and neither reply names an organization that was denied tax exempt status.

Perhaps this game is to complicated for conservatives?


_________________
I approve this message.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

PkrBum wrote:http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/17/irs-tea-party-target-list-propaganda/2825003/

More than 80% of the organizations on the 2011 "political advocacy case" list were conservative,but the effort to police political activity also ensnared at least 11 liberal groups as of November 2011,including Progressives United,Progress Texas and Delawareans for Social and Economic Justice.

Now let's think about that for a minute...what faction probably had the most new applications for this particular classification...can't really call it a party...in 2011, keeping in mind that the actual reporting by these groups occurs a year after their initial application? And, who allowed these groups to classify themselves as 501c4 at all?

From the IRS:

Types of Organizations Exempt under Section 501(c)(4)
Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(4) provides for the exemption of two very different types of organizations with their own distinct qualification requirements. They are:
Social welfare organizations: Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, and
Local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of designated person(s) in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.
Homeowners associations and volunteer fire companies may be recognized as exempt as social welfare organizations if they meet the requirements for exemption. [b]Organizations that engage in substantial lobbying activities sometimes also are classified as social welfare organizations[b].

-----------------

The IRS is in the process of changing the rules for 501c4, and meeting heavy opposition. IMHO, these blatantly partisan groups should have never received that tax exempt, non-disclosure status.


Guest


Guest

Perhaps "inappropriate targeting" is acceptable to you by one of the most powerful and fearsome agencies in govt.

The good news is the leftists won't always wield the sword. You'll support partisan targeting via govt power when the right does it though...right? Misuse of office used to draw the condemnation of all americans... today not so much.

This took place in the lead up to an election btw. There were constant demands for information and proofs.

If not for the enormous power of the federal govt... I guess you could call it harassment in liberal logic world.

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:Perhaps "inappropriate targeting" is acceptable to you by one of the most powerful and fearsome agencies in govt.

The good news is the leftists won't always wield the sword. You'll support partisan targeting via govt power when the right does it though...right? Misuse of office used to draw the condemnation of all americans... today not so much.

This took place in the lead up to an election btw. There were constant demands for information and proofs.

If not for the enormous power of the federal govt... I guess you could call it harassment in liberal logic world.


You're leaving me no choice here but to assume that you can't actually name another organization that was ever denied tax exempt status.  

So I guess that reduces this "scandal" down to an "inappropriate targeting".  OK.  Fair enough.  All I can say to that is, what!?  Are you serious?  Do you mean to tell me that the federal government doesn't blankly grant tax exempt status to anyone and everyone?  Are you suggesting that there are times where people have to answer questions, and stuff?  

Let me ask you something, PkrBum.  Let's pretend you work for the IRS.  You live in an age where the landscape of politics is changing and much of the money that goes into campaign finance is now being spent through new tax exempt channels that can collect limitless amounts of money.  As part of your job description, you are tasked with increasing the level of scrutiny to political organizations of this nature.  I guess your first question here would be "How do I find these organizations among the endless supply of tax exempt applications?"  

You have a keyword search feature at your disposal.  The year is 2011.  Do any keywords come to mind?  Are there any keywords that you would be particularly amazed by if they were not used to identify political organizations?


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:
PkrBum wrote:http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/17/irs-tea-party-target-list-propaganda/2825003/

More than 80% of the organizations on the 2011 "political advocacy case" list were conservative,but the effort to police political activity also ensnared at least 11 liberal groups as of November 2011,including Progressives United,Progress Texas and Delawareans for Social and Economic Justice.

Now let's think about that for a minute...what faction probably had the most new applications for this particular classification...can't really call it a party...in 2011, keeping in mind that the actual reporting by these groups occurs a year after their initial application? And, who allowed these groups to classify themselves as 501c4 at all?

From the IRS:

Types of Organizations Exempt under Section 501(c)(4)
Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(4) provides for the exemption of two very different types of organizations with their own distinct qualification requirements. They are:
Social welfare organizations: Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, and
Local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of designated person(s) in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.
Homeowners associations and volunteer fire companies may be recognized as exempt as social welfare organizations if they meet the requirements for exemption. [b]Organizations that engage in substantial lobbying activities sometimes also are classified as social welfare organizations[b].

-----------------

The IRS is in the process of changing the rules for 501c4, and meeting heavy opposition. IMHO, these blatantly partisan groups should have never received that tax exempt, non-disclosure status.



Americans United for Change 501(c)4 (soros)
The Ruckus Society 501(c)3 (occupy movement)
Women's Action for New Direction 501(c)4 (soros)
New World Foundation 501(c)3
Fierce 501(c)3 (alinski)
CAIR 501(c)3
North American Islamic Trust 501(c)3
Barack H Obama Foundation 501(c)3
Media Matters For America 501(c)3 (soros)
Center for American Progress 501(c)3 (soros)
Democratic Socialists of America 501(c)3
Center For Progressive Leadership 501(c)3 (soros) Progressive Majority 501(c)3
American Bridge 501(c)4
People Before Profits 501(c)4
Color Of Change 501(c)4
Progress Now 501(c)4
Organizing for Action (OFA) 501(c)4
The Southern Poverty Law Center 501(c)3
Priorities USA 501(c)4
MoveOn. org 501(c)4 (soros)
Act Blue 501(c)4
CodePink 501(c)3
Muslim Brotherhood 501(c)3
Socialist Party USA 501(c)3

Markle

Markle

boards of FL wrote:
Markle wrote:So you found ONE...wow, I'm impressed!


That's great, Markle.  So back to the game.  I have already named an organization that was denied tax exempt status as a result of this "scandal".  Now it is time for anyone else to name another organization.  So far I have had two replies and neither reply names an organization that was denied tax exempt status.

Perhaps this game is to complicated for conservatives?

Posted a source and link to 292 plus numerous others.

When will Lois Lerner be given immunity so she can tell her story under oath?

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Markle wrote:So you found ONE...wow, I'm impressed!


That's great, Markle.  So back to the game.  I have already named an organization that was denied tax exempt status as a result of this "scandal".  Now it is time for anyone else to name another organization.  So far I have had two replies and neither reply names an organization that was denied tax exempt status.

Perhaps this game is to complicated for conservatives?

Posted a source and link to 292 plus numerous others.

When will Lois Lerner be given immunity so she can tell her story under oath?

You didn't name a single one. Ms. Lerner was only head of the Cincinnati office. The actual IRS interim commissioner resigned. Issa has been called out...because the "scandal" originated with him.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

PkrBum wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
PkrBum wrote:http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/17/irs-tea-party-target-list-propaganda/2825003/

More than 80% of the organizations on the 2011 "political advocacy case" list were conservative,but the effort to police political activity also ensnared at least 11 liberal groups as of November 2011,including Progressives United,Progress Texas and Delawareans for Social and Economic Justice.

Now let's think about that for a minute...what faction probably had the most new applications for this particular classification...can't really call it a party...in 2011, keeping in mind that the actual reporting by these groups occurs a year after their initial application?  And, who allowed these groups to classify themselves as 501c4 at all?

From the IRS:

Types of Organizations Exempt under Section 501(c)(4)
Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(4) provides for the exemption of two very different types of organizations with their own distinct qualification requirements. They are:
Social welfare organizations: Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, and
Local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of designated person(s) in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.
Homeowners associations and volunteer fire companies may be recognized as exempt as social welfare organizations if they meet the requirements for exemption. [b]Organizations that engage in substantial lobbying activities sometimes also are classified as social welfare organizations[b].

-----------------

The IRS is in the process of changing the rules for 501c4, and meeting heavy opposition.  IMHO, these blatantly partisan groups should have never received that tax exempt, non-disclosure status.



Americans United for Change 501(c)4 (soros)
The Ruckus Society 501(c)3 (occupy movement)
Women's Action for New Direction 501(c)4 (soros)
New World Foundation 501(c)3
Fierce 501(c)3 (alinski)
CAIR 501(c)3
North American Islamic Trust 501(c)3
Barack H Obama Foundation 501(c)3
Media Matters For America 501(c)3 (soros)
Center for American Progress  501(c)3 (soros)
Democratic Socialists of America 501(c)3
Center For Progressive Leadership 501(c)3 (soros) Progressive Majority 501(c)3
American Bridge 501(c)4
People Before Profits 501(c)4
Color Of Change 501(c)4
Progress Now 501(c)4
Organizing for Action (OFA) 501(c)4
The Southern Poverty Law Center  501(c)3
Priorities USA 501(c)4
MoveOn. org 501(c)4 (soros)
Act Blue 501(c)4
CodePink 501(c)3
Muslim Brotherhood 501(c)3
Socialist Party USA 501(c)3

Since you're going to include 501c3, please explain the difference between 501c3 and 501c4. Also, please name your source for the inclusion of the above groups, including those you attribute to Soros...

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum