If some groups were targeted for additional screening, while others were not, based on key words such as "Tea Party" and "Constitution", then yes, that is an abuse of power and selective screening. It violates the 5th Amendment, at the very least, and there are going to be lawsuits, with some already being filed. You're kind of making a joke of yourself in this thread. It's baffling.
I find it funny that Denny decries the lack of "facts" when he first tried to say Tea Party groups raised $1b, and when it turns out that is the total of all SuperPACs, left or right, suddenly the conversation changes again.
Er, well, not really. Every PAC, left, right, or middle, combined for $1b. Why would you assign that number to the Tea Party groups that were targeted? Plus, it's coming out now that many of these Tea Party groups had to pay thousands of dollars to register and have lawyers look at their filings. Derp
Yeah, I mean to say the special interest groups (PACs, etc.) spent $1B. Get your jollies from my mistake, but you're making the real mistake. I'm looking for some sort of damage done to the groups that wanted to cheat the tax code. I've shown there was none. I ask you to prove I'm wrong. You can't. And it doesn't matter if the left pacs got to spend $250M of the ~$1B. The tea party groups got to raise and spend their share of that. They had to play by the same rules right groups should have. And as if they were scrutinized and denied 51(c)4 status. I'm looking for the damage done. None.
Time and money are "damages" in terms of any fundraising efforts. I suggest you read up on what some of these groups had to experience to get tax exempt status, based on discriminatory practices by the IRS. You were wrong and have embarrassed yourself. Now you're just doubling down on stupid. Please stop pretending to be a Libertarian, because you aren't one. Also, you just made up another number with your $250m attributed to leftist groups. Do you just make up numbers and attribute them to groups to buttress your POV? If so, wow.
No, you are posting stupid things. Nixon, crimes, damages, blah blah. What time? What money? Give me amounts. Link to your source.
The lawsuits are starting. I'm not giving specifics, because I don't have them yet. I will need to see the court filings and what damages are sought. Unlike you, who apparently just makes things up, and looks like a fool in doing so.
Please don't ever call yourself a Libertarian again, Denny. You're an embarrassment to true Libertarians.
It's very funny that someone caught making things up about $1b and Tea Party groups still tries to play the high road. First rule of being in a hole ... stop digging.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/19/the_false_nixon_equivalence_118465.html The False Nixon Equivalence By Steve Chapman - May 19, 2013 "The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know," said Harry Truman, who made it his task to absorb a lot of it. Many people who have not followed his example are not averse to using what little they do know, with the inadvertent effect of exposing how much they have to learn. In recent days, those people have triumphantly likened Barack Obama to Richard Nixon, particularly on the misuse of the Internal Revenue Service for political advantage. In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee voted to impeach Nixon because, among other reasons, he tried to cause "income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner." This, of course, is exactly what the IRS now admits doing when it singled out conservative groups for special scrutiny. The Treasury Department's Inspector General found, "The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions." The misconduct happened under the current president. Therefore, Obama = Nixon. But equating the two is like concluding that babies are like poisonous snakes because some of them have rattles. Maybe information will someday emerge to confirm the conservative suspicion that Obama thuggishly subverted the IRS to win re-election, but so far, it falls in the realm of make-believe. Here is what the 44th president had to say about how the agency should operate: "Americans have a right to be angry about it, and I'm angry about it. It should not matter what political stripe you're from. The fact of the matter is the IRS has to operate with absolute integrity." Obama said this as he announced the dismissal of the acting commissioner for failing to prevent political abuse. Here is what the 37th president had to say about how the agency should operate: "Are we looking over the financial contributors to the Democratic National Committee? Are we running their income tax returns? ... We have all this power and we aren't using it. Now, what the Christ is the matter?" Nixon did not have a fetish for maximizing revenue. The point, a memo from the White House counsel helpfully explained, was to "use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies." On multiple occasions, at the behest of the president or his top aides, the IRS was told to audit individuals whose activities created dissatisfaction in the Oval Office. The chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Lawrence O'Brien, got special attention. One of Nixon's top aides called the commissioner of the IRS and demanded action, hoping to "send him to jail before the elections." Nixon ordered investigations of Democrats who might run against him. Obama's complaint is that the IRS engaged in unfair treatment of groups that oppose him. Nixon's was that it was reluctant to engage in unfair treatment of those that opposed him. In 1971, weary of improper pressure, Commissioner Randolph Thrower asked for a meeting with the president to advise him that "the introduction of political influence into the IRS would be very damaging to him and his administration, as well as to the revenue system and the general public interest." Nixon refused to see him. When another commissioner closed down a unit that was used for political retribution, the president tried repeatedly to fire him -- while griping profanely in private that he, as The New York Times paraphrased, "was prissy about legal procedures." Not that revenge was Nixon's sole mission. "If harassment of 'enemies' was half the White House strategy, the other half was succor for friends," wrote New York Times reporter J. Anthony Lukas in his book "Nightmare: The Underside of the Nixon Years." When evangelist Billy Graham and actor John Wayne got audit notices, the president demanded that the IRS back off. In Nixon's mind, using tax agents as political operatives was not only excusable but exemplary. In the case of Obama, there is no evidence that he or his Treasury Secretary was aware of the mistreatment of conservative groups -- much less that either of them requested it. Many of his critics nevertheless claim to detect in him a ruthless mendacity unseen in the White House since 1974. The result of this distortion is to highlight not how much Obama resembles Nixon, but how much they do. // schapman@tribune.com
Cut/paste a Chicago article defending the President. At least you didn't make stuff up in that post...
You've posted a lot of crap in this thread. You can't prove there were damages. There were no damages. In fact, the damage was done by letting any political organization have 501(c)4 status. We'll never know if Soros didn't buy the election for Obama. THAT is what people need to know so they can be informed. I'm not in any way shape or form defending the administration. The IRS acted unethically, but not illegally. You could play Pin the Fail on the Donkey and win. You choose to play pin nixon on Obama and it's a loser.
I'm not looking to claim damages. That's what the lawsuits will be for, and I am merely relaying that info. Then again, I'm not the one excusing obvious political games by the IRS. It's weird that you are. Do you work for the IRS? Even Dems are coming out against this obvious targeting, but for some weird reason, a so-called "Libertarian" such as yourself is the only one defending obvious discriminatory and biased enforcement of tax exempt groups by the IRS. Plus, you've lied repeatedly in this thread, have been called out on it, and continue to deflect. I wish I could put you and your lies on ignore, but I can't.
Bullshit. I did not lie in this thread. You do understand the difference between unethical and criminal, right? You are the one defending a hole in the tax code that allows organizations to raise unlimited money and not disclose the donors. You are very much on the wrong side of this, all the way around. You miss the posts where I said the IRS did something "wrong," and then make up stuff you think I said.
Why are you so hung up on the amounts spent? Denny, the issue isn't damage, it's intent. The IRS has to be above reproach. It HAS to treat people and organizations fairly and equally. They didn't. And as the article says, all orders came from above the low level employees currently blamed in the talking points.
It would be nice if Denny would read the IG report, but we know that won't happen. Plus, the leaking of info to Pro Publica is beyond defense.
