New title for Obama - Obstructor in Chief....Just release the emails Barry....that's all you gotta do

http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/03/obama-administration-refuses-to-release-documents-about-white-house-role-in-irs-scandal/

Won't release emails on IRS scandal.

IRS conservative targeting scandal.

Not a scintilla of proof of conservative targeting. However, just like the pretend Benghazi scandal, it is the descriptions which reach conclusions without an iota of fact. If the White House has wrongfully withheld information a court will rule against them. However, there is no investigation. It is simply story after story which does not go to any substance, but allows somebody to say......targeting conservatives......which to date has been shown to be nonsense as many groups on the spectrum were the targets. Benghazi.........same ending.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/05/17/exclusive-woman-who-asked-irss-lois-lerner-scandal-breaking-question-details-plant

Celia Roady, a prominent tax lawyer in the firm of Morgan Lewis, said she was called personally by Lois Lerner, the IRS head of the tax exempt division, on May 9.

"I received a call from Lois Lerner, who told me that she wanted to address an issue after her prepared remarks at the [American Bar Association] Tax Section's Exempt Organizations Committee Meeting, and asked if I would pose a question to her after her remarks," Roady said in a statement to U.S. News and World Report. "I agreed to do so, and she then gave me the question that I asked at the meeting the next day. We had no discussion thereafter on the topic of the question, nor had we spoken about any of this before I received her call. She did not tell me, and I did not know, how she would answer the question."

Acting IRS commissioner Steven Miller admitted to House lawmakers Friday during an oversight hearing of the controversy that the question was a plant. The IRS was aware of a forthcoming Treasury Department Inspector General Report that would condemn the targeting of groups applying for 501(c)(4) status if they contained the words "tea party," "patriot" or "9/12."

The transcript: http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50160

" However, in these cases, the way they did the centralization was not so fine. Instead of referring to  cases as advocacy cases, they actually used case names on this list. They used names like Tea Party or Patriots and they selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the title. That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate — that’s not how we go about selecting cases for further review. We don’t select for review because they have a particular name. The other thing that happened was they also, in some cases, cases sat around for a while. They also sent some letters out that were far too broad, asking questions of these organizations that weren’t really necessary for the type of application. In some cases you probably read that they asked for contributor names. That’s not appropriate, not usual, there are some very limited times when we might need that but in most of these cases where they were asked they didn’t do it correctly and they didn’t do it with a higher level of review. As I said, some of them sat around for too long."

This is a fabricated conspiracy in my mind. The Tea Party was in its infancy but there was a plethora of groups applying for TAX FREE status although most could not pass muster once scrutinized as to their mission (Social v Political). I believe the IRS did engage in filtering their search for these application for closer scrutiny but for a valid reason but of course has subsequently been turned into an 'attack on political beliefs' . . . . so the GOP spends a lot of effort grand standing about the horrible takeover of political beliefs.

This is a fabricated conspiracy in my mind.

Agreed. The failure of properly issuing subpoenas was my first tip off. It is simply a dog chasing its tail. Many groups were targeted, and rightfully so. The IRS was doing their job. In the meantime, like Benghazi we will hear innuendo after innuendo without a scintilla of evidence of exclusive targeting. There was no exclusive targeting and folks were doing their job........but the real tip is they have nothing after two years.....sound familiar?

Keep dreaming tards...

the COWH sure does seem to want to hide the evidence then

Keep dreaming tards...

the COWH sure does seem to want to hide the evidence then




What evidence? What admission? What policy written or otherwise? Nothing after two years, and now just like the seven or more Benghazi hearings, it has nothing to do with evidence, but the continual lie repeated that there was exclusive targeting. Nothing after two years except the innuendos repeated ad nausem.

Particularly in this domestic case... but also the gunrunning to mexican cartels and wiretapping media or metadata... there should be no choice but full disclosure and cooperation. Anyone that doesn't agree in these cases is a partisan hack.

by 2seaoat Today at 1:27 am
Keep dreaming tards...

the COWH sure does seem to want to hide the evidence then




What evidence? What admission? What policy written or otherwise? Nothing after two years, and now just like the seven or more Benghazi hearings, it has nothing to do with evidence, but the continual lie repeated that there was exclusive targeting. Nothing after two years except the innuendos repeated ad nausem.
-------
Then explain why the emails are not being released?
If there's nothing to hide, give'm up case closed

This is FAR from the most transparent government ever ...

2seaoat wrote:Keep dreaming tards...

the COWH sure does seem to want to hide the evidence then




What evidence?  What admission?  What policy written or otherwise?  Nothing after two years, and now just like the seven or more Benghazi hearings, it has nothing to do with evidence, but the continual lie repeated that there was exclusive targeting.   Nothing after two years except the innuendos repeated ad nausem.  

If there is no evidence of wrongdoing, release the emails then? Remember the lie of Lois Lerner's emails couldn't be recovered.  Now that there has been a recovery of 30k emails, the WH doesn't want to release their emails as well. Hmmmm. Where there is smoke there is fire. There's a LOT of smoke here. If not, then why hide the emails and not release them?

From the article you all failed to read:

The Obama administration said that it is withholding all of the thousands of pages of documents related to the White House’s coordination with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) during the IRS conservative targeting scandal.

Secretary of the Treasury Jacob Lew, Obama’s former White House Chief of Staff, took the documents that were set to be released and now refuses to ever turn them over. His rationale? Lew cannot release information about improper disclosures of confidential taxpayer information because that would be an improper disclosure of confidential taxpayer information.

The Daily Caller reported that the Treasury Department’s inspector general found nearly 2,500 pages of documents that chronicle investigations into the confidential taxpayer information that the White House exchanged with the IRS.

The documents were found pursuant to a lawsuit that the legal advocacy firm Cause of Action filed against the Treasury Department’s inspector general.

The lawyer for the inspector general, Gregory M. Miller, told Cause of Action this week in a letter that Lew seized the documents

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:When will it be declared that like Benghazi, there was nothing to the so called IRS scandal?

Where is Congressman Gowdy and his investigative expertise when you need it?

When will the emails be released then? Unfortunately for the left, 15 people won't mysteriously be dead who were going to testify in front of Gowdy and they will have to release these emails.