The Smoking Gun is getting Hotter

[icanthearyou 4,463]

"A lot of folks are real eager to cast this as more serious than Watergate. I don't even know where to begin with that. I can't imagine how one gets through to someone with that belief. I believe the worst scandals are those in which the precipitating incident was a crime which was later covered up by those at the highest levels. Nixon was actively engaged in Watergate."

I see it took you a whole day to come up with this latest minimization effort.

Apparently, unlike you, I work for a living.

Always with the personal insults. Its just the liberal way. Another thing, as to your characterization that nobody was shut down, it was the intent that is what is being questioned. There was a concerted effort to minimize the efforts of Tea Party activist groups by stonewalling their 401c requests. Intent has a lot to do with determining the criminality of certain activities.

Yes TT. You should try to conduct yourself as Blue does. :-\

[AUtiger98 24]

Everyone needs to review the facts we have so far. Here are a few.

http://www.cnn.com/2...dal-fast-facts/

May 10, 2013 - Miller helps engineer an apology by Lois Lerner, the director of the Exempt Organizations Division since January 2006, through a planted question at an American Bar Association meeting.

-- The IRS holds a conference call with reporters where they admits they've made "mistakes" in the last few years while trying to process requests from groups seeking tax-exempt status.

Congressman Elijah Cummings was asking the IRS to look into conservative groups before it happened.

http://hotair.com/ar...n-with-the-irs/

http://oversight.hou...14/04/FN-82.pdf

Sen. Carl Levin also was asking the IRS to look into conservative groups before it happened.

http://hotair.com/ar...-was-political/

With emails pointing to the allegations being true, it is logical that more incriminating emails exist or did exist. I can't understand why any American would oppose this investigation.

I don't think anyone on this forum opposes an investigation. I certainly don't.

That's not the issue at all. This issue we are discussing is the over-the-top assumptions and accusations about the nature of what actually happened.

To say that it is worse than Watergate is laughable and only points out just how hyperbolic the Republican charges are. It seems that Republicans always overplay their hand in an attempt to whip up as much political furor as they can over any given incident. Benghazi is the other prime example.

So by all means investigate. Find out how and why evidence may have disappeared (which, just like Watergate, is far worse than the original act). As someone else suggested, grant Lerner immunity in exchange for testifying. Let's find out every single thing there is to know.

You and I agree on several key points, but if our government targets citizens based on political beliefs I believe that is a much bigger story than Watergate. Since Eric Holder refuses to investigate this there is an appearance of a cover up. Since there is an appearance of a cover up, their is an assumption the White House is involved. Why would the DOJ not investigate the actions of an IRS agent in Cincy?

I don't think Lois will ever talk. If she did some powerful people will be most likely be affected and it would not be good for her health. 'Snitches Get Stitches"

[AuburnNTexas 7,150]

TexT....maybe not but people were punished for Watergate and Iran Contra. Who has been punished for the wrongdoings and lies in this administration?

You must be living in a cave if you think it is just "guys here" who see the IRS as a major scandal. Just one example. I can list a whole bunch:

http://www.foxnews.c...-and-corrupted/

Politics aside...why are you not seriously concerned about the IRS mess or scandal (call it what you want)?

I'm content to investigate and let the facts come out and then I'll decide how I feel about them. But what's alleged is that some political groups may have received closer scrutiny before receiving tax exempt status. Not that anyone was denied their constitutional rights or was fined or targeted for criminal investigation. And the claim that these political groups are not political is laughable.

If someone concealed something from Congress, that may be the only crime here.

The problem with your argument is that these conservative groups not only were held to a different standard but even after 2 years many still hadn't been given their tax exempt status. Nobody here ever stated that we didn't think many of these groups were politically motivated, but so were many of the liberal groups that were given their tax exempt status without having to wait. The issue is the IRS does not represent conservative or liberal it represents all of us. When they use a Litmus test that helps one side they are breaking the law. When people from the IRS are asked to speak in front of a congressional committee and what they say is proven false they have committed perjury. Government officials committing perjury is a scandal. When documents are requested then destroyed before being provided that is a criminal act. The Blackberry being wiped after Lois Lerner was invited to come and speak was illegal.

[homersapien 11,385]

Everyone needs to review the facts we have so far. Here are a few.

http://www.cnn.com/2...dal-fast-facts/

May 10, 2013 - Miller helps engineer an apology by Lois Lerner, the director of the Exempt Organizations Division since January 2006, through a planted question at an American Bar Association meeting.

-- The IRS holds a conference call with reporters where they admits they've made "mistakes" in the last few years while trying to process requests from groups seeking tax-exempt status.

Congressman Elijah Cummings was asking the IRS to look into conservative groups before it happened.

http://hotair.com/ar...n-with-the-irs/

http://oversight.hou...14/04/FN-82.pdf

Sen. Carl Levin also was asking the IRS to look into conservative groups before it happened.

http://hotair.com/ar...-was-political/

With emails pointing to the allegations being true, it is logical that more incriminating emails exist or did exist. I can't understand why any American would oppose this investigation.

I don't think anyone on this forum opposes an investigation. I certainly don't.

That's not the issue at all. This issue we are discussing is the over-the-top assumptions and accusations about the nature of what actually happened.

To say that it is worse than Watergate is laughable and only points out just how hyperbolic the Republican charges are. It seems that Republicans always overplay their hand in an attempt to whip up as much political furor as they can over any given incident. Benghazi is the other prime example.

So by all means investigate. Find out how and why evidence may have disappeared (which, just like Watergate, is far worse than the original act). As someone else suggested, grant Lerner immunity in exchange for testifying. Let's find out every single thing there is to know.

You and I agree on several key points, but if our government targets citizens based on political beliefs I believe that is a much bigger story than Watergate. Since Eric Holder refuses to investigate this there is an appearance of a cover up. Since there is an appearance of a cover up, their is an assumption the White House is involved. Why would the DOJ not investigate the actions of an IRS agent in Cincy?

I don't think Lois will ever talk. If she did some powerful people will be most likely be affected and it would not be good for her health. 'Snitches Get Stitches"

First, I will admit that I have been following this only casually. Having said that, my understanding is IRS were asking specific 501 ©(4) organizations for information to justify their tax-exempt status. Now if it stops there, I am all for it. (see link below).

It is my understanding that some or all of the following accusations have been made:

1. this was inappropriate activity in any case
   
2. the IRS was specifically targeting "tea party" groups if not exclusively then calculatingly
   
3. these requests for information crippled or damaged the operations of the groups involved
   
4. this was all orchestrated for some strategic political ends, presumably to directly hinder the Republicans or otherwise advantage the Democrats
   
5. responsibility for the plan to do this resides at a high level in the Obama administration
   
6. L. Lehrner refused to testify in order to protect herself or some superiors
   
7. there were deliberate attempts to destroy critical evidence that would shed more light on the motivations for the actions
   

Did I forget any?

FWIW, I think each of these accusations is perfectly reasonable and deserves an exhaustive answer. I hope that we get it.

Thanks in large part to the contemporary media culture, I am sure many people are sure they can already infer or deduct the truth based on what we do know, but those inferences are still largely informed by the political prism through which the facts are seen (which explains the statement I highlighted above).

But I am not really interested in exchanging opinions on these accusations without definitive knowledge of the facts. For one thing, I am not so interested in this that I am willing to do the research. I would rather wait until the books come out. Secondly, it forces me to either constantly defend - or appear to be defending - the IRS or an administration I don't trust and who may be guilty of some or all of these accusations.

Having said that, I think it very unlikely this goes very high up into the administration. I don't think there is a reasonable risk/benefit calculus for that. But any discussion I am interested in will have to start from the beginning. Can anyone summarize exactly what was done in the beginning, with references? My mind is open.

http://www.economonitor.com/dolanecon/2013/05/20/people-are-drawing-the-wrong-lesson-from-the-irs-501c4-scandal-we-need-to-rethink-the-whole-concept-of-tax-exempt-organizations-2/

[TexasTiger 12,947]

"A lot of folks are real eager to cast this as more serious than Watergate. I don't even know where to begin with that. I can't imagine how one gets through to someone with that belief. I believe the worst scandals are those in which the precipitating incident was a crime which was later covered up by those at the highest levels. Nixon was actively engaged in Watergate."

I see it took you a whole day to come up with this latest minimization effort.

Apparently, unlike you, I work for a living.

Always with the personal insults. Its just the liberal way. Another thing, as to your characterization that nobody was shut down, it was the intent that is what is being questioned. There was a concerted effort to minimize the efforts of Tea Party activist groups by stonewalling their 401c requests. Intent has a lot to do with determining the criminality of certain activities.

Whine, whine...I was responding to the personal dig you led your post with. And, as usual, your post doesn't even reflect that you read most of mine.

[Kassc22 0]

http://www.powerline...for-dummies.php

POSTED ON MAY 13, 2014 BY SCOTT JOHNSON IN IRS, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SCANDALS

THE IRS SCANDAL FOR DUMMIES

Paul Caron holds down the fort at the TaxProf Blog. On his site he has provided daily compilations of news stories and editorial commentary bearing on the IRS scandal over the past year. He has not otherwise made his point of view on the scandal apparent.

USA Today now runs a useful column by Caron reviewing the scandal. Drawing on his daily compilations, Caron sets out a timeline of key events, going back to Obama’s comment in a 2009 commencement address that the IRS would soon be auditing the president of the university and the Board of Regents for refusing to grant him an honorary degree. At the time Glenn Reynolds wrote a prescient Wall Street Journal column: “Tax audits are no laughing matter.”

Caron’s timeline concludes with a recollection of Watergate:

In that scandal, aggressive reporting by the media and thorough investigations by the FBI, Justice Department and a Senate Select Committee painstakingly uncovered the facts of the illegal break-in at the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters months before the 1972 presidential election. One of the three articles of impeachment charged that President Nixon had attempted to use the IRS against his political opponents.

That was then, this is now:

Today’s news media are largely ignoring the IRS scandal, and it is impossible to have confidence in the current investigations by the FBI, Justice Department, and House committee. I am not suggesting that the current scandal in the end will rise to the level of Watergate. But the allegations are serious, and fair-minded Americans of both parties should agree that a thorough investigation needs to be undertaken to either debunk them or confirm them.

Caron concludes: “Step one should be to give Lois Lerner full immunity from prosecution in exchange for her testimony. And then let the chips fall where they may.”

Caron’s column lays out the key elements of the scandal (although he omits any reference to the audits of individual Republican contributors explored by Kim Strassel, as in this column). Caron’s column makes a contribution to understanding. I hope interested readers will check it out.

Now with the warrant of Caron’s column I add my usual reminder. Nixon’s efforts to misuse the IRS were futile. They went nowhere. Nixon and his henchmen desired the IRS to “screw” their political opponents, but their efforts were a pathetic failure.

Nixon henchman Jack Caulfield astutely complained that the IRS was a “monstrous bureaucracy…dominated and controlled by Democrats.” As we have come to see, Caulfield was on to something. By contrast with Nixon’s failures to misuse the IRS, the IRS has very effectively “screwed” Obama’s political opponents, and we have yet to learn what the president knew and when he knew it.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

http://www.powerline...for-dummies.php

POSTED ON MAY 13, 2014 BY SCOTT JOHNSON IN IRS, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SCANDALS

THE IRS SCANDAL FOR DUMMIES

Paul Caron holds down the fort at the TaxProf Blog. On his site he has provided daily compilations of news stories and editorial commentary bearing on the IRS scandal over the past year. He has not otherwise made his point of view on the scandal apparent.

USA Today now runs a useful column by Caron reviewing the scandal. Drawing on his daily compilations, Caron sets out a timeline of key events, going back to Obama’s comment in a 2009 commencement address that the IRS would soon be auditing the president of the university and the Board of Regents for refusing to grant him an honorary degree. At the time Glenn Reynolds wrote a prescient Wall Street Journal column: “Tax audits are no laughing matter.”

Caron’s timeline concludes with a recollection of Watergate:

In that scandal, aggressive reporting by the media and thorough investigations by the FBI, Justice Department and a Senate Select Committee painstakingly uncovered the facts of the illegal break-in at the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters months before the 1972 presidential election. One of the three articles of impeachment charged that President Nixon had attempted to use the IRS against his political opponents.

That was then, this is now:

Today’s news media are largely ignoring the IRS scandal, and it is impossible to have confidence in the current investigations by the FBI, Justice Department, and House committee. I am not suggesting that the current scandal in the end will rise to the level of Watergate. But the allegations are serious, and fair-minded Americans of both parties should agree that a thorough investigation needs to be undertaken to either debunk them or confirm them.

Caron concludes: “Step one should be to give Lois Lerner full immunity from prosecution in exchange for her testimony. And then let the chips fall where they may.”

Caron’s column lays out the key elements of the scandal (although he omits any reference to the audits of individual Republican contributors explored by Kim Strassel, as in this column). Caron’s column makes a contribution to understanding. I hope interested readers will check it out.

Now with the warrant of Caron’s column I add my usual reminder. Nixon’s efforts to misuse the IRS were futile. They went nowhere. Nixon and his henchmen desired the IRS to “screw” their political opponents, but their efforts were a pathetic failure.

Nixon henchman Jack Caulfield astutely complained that the IRS was a “monstrous bureaucracy…dominated and controlled by Democrats.” As we have come to see, Caulfield was on to something. By contrast with Nixon’s failures to misuse the IRS, the IRS has very effectively “screwed” Obama’s political opponents, and we have yet to learn what the president knew and when he knew it.

Putting some polemicist's words in a larger font doesn't show that you have any understanding of how ridiculous that comparison is.

[DKW 86 7,426]

http://www.powerline...for-dummies.php

POSTED ON MAY 13, 2014 BY SCOTT JOHNSON IN IRS, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SCANDALS

THE IRS SCANDAL FOR DUMMIES

Paul Caron holds down the fort at the TaxProf Blog. On his site he has provided daily compilations of news stories and editorial commentary bearing on the IRS scandal over the past year. He has not otherwise made his point of view on the scandal apparent.

USA Today now runs a useful column by Caron reviewing the scandal. Drawing on his daily compilations, Caron sets out a timeline of key events, going back to Obama's comment in a 2009 commencement address that the IRS would soon be auditing the president of the university and the Board of Regents for refusing to grant him an honorary degree. At the time Glenn Reynolds wrote a prescient Wall Street Journal column: "Tax audits are no laughing matter."

Caron's timeline concludes with a recollection of Watergate:

In that scandal, aggressive reporting by the media and thorough investigations by the FBI, Justice Department and a Senate Select Committee painstakingly uncovered the facts of the illegal break-in at the Democratic National Committee's headquarters months before the 1972 presidential election. One of the three articles of impeachment charged that President Nixon had attempted to use the IRS against his political opponents.

That was then, this is now:

Today's news media are largely ignoring the IRS scandal, and it is impossible to have confidence in the current investigations by the FBI, Justice Department, and House committee. I am not suggesting that the current scandal in the end will rise to the level of Watergate. But the allegations are serious, and fair-minded Americans of both parties should agree that a thorough investigation needs to be undertaken to either debunk them or confirm them.

Caron concludes: "Step one should be to give Lois Lerner full immunity from prosecution in exchange for her testimony. And then let the chips fall where they may."

Caron's column lays out the key elements of the scandal (although he omits any reference to the audits of individual Republican contributors explored by Kim Strassel, as in this column). Caron's column makes a contribution to understanding. I hope interested readers will check it out.

Now with the warrant of Caron's column I add my usual reminder. Nixon's efforts to misuse the IRS were futile. They went nowhere. Nixon and his henchmen desired the IRS to "screw" their political opponents, but their efforts were a pathetic failure.

Nixon henchman Jack Caulfield astutely complained that the IRS was a "monstrous bureaucracy…dominated and controlled by Democrats." As we have come to see, Caulfield was on to something. By contrast with Nixon's failures to misuse the IRS, the IRS has very effectively "screwed" Obama's political opponents, and we have yet to learn what the president knew and when he knew it.

Putting some polemicist's words in a larger font doesn't show that you have any understanding of how ridiculous that comparison is.

She is trying to get you to see that there is a huge difference in the content of the charges.

Trying to use the IRS vs Actually using the IRS.

I think most adults are now getting the real sense of what happened here.

[Kassc22 0]

http://www.powerline...for-dummies.php

POSTED ON MAY 13, 2014 BY SCOTT JOHNSON IN IRS, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SCANDALS

THE IRS SCANDAL FOR DUMMIES

Paul Caron holds down the fort at the TaxProf Blog. On his site he has provided daily compilations of news stories and editorial commentary bearing on the IRS scandal over the past year. He has not otherwise made his point of view on the scandal apparent.

USA Today now runs a useful column by Caron reviewing the scandal. Drawing on his daily compilations, Caron sets out a timeline of key events, going back to Obama's comment in a 2009 commencement address that the IRS would soon be auditing the president of the university and the Board of Regents for refusing to grant him an honorary degree. At the time Glenn Reynolds wrote a prescient Wall Street Journal column: "Tax audits are no laughing matter."

Caron's timeline concludes with a recollection of Watergate:

In that scandal, aggressive reporting by the media and thorough investigations by the FBI, Justice Department and a Senate Select Committee painstakingly uncovered the facts of the illegal break-in at the Democratic National Committee's headquarters months before the 1972 presidential election. One of the three articles of impeachment charged that President Nixon had attempted to use the IRS against his political opponents.

That was then, this is now:

Today's news media are largely ignoring the IRS scandal, and it is impossible to have confidence in the current investigations by the FBI, Justice Department, and House committee. I am not suggesting that the current scandal in the end will rise to the level of Watergate. But the allegations are serious, and fair-minded Americans of both parties should agree that a thorough investigation needs to be undertaken to either debunk them or confirm them.

Caron concludes: "Step one should be to give Lois Lerner full immunity from prosecution in exchange for her testimony. And then let the chips fall where they may."

Caron's column lays out the key elements of the scandal (although he omits any reference to the audits of individual Republican contributors explored by Kim Strassel, as in this column). Caron's column makes a contribution to understanding. I hope interested readers will check it out.

Now with the warrant of Caron's column I add my usual reminder. Nixon's efforts to misuse the IRS were futile. They went nowhere. Nixon and his henchmen desired the IRS to "screw" their political opponents, but their efforts were a pathetic failure.

Nixon henchman Jack Caulfield astutely complained that the IRS was a "monstrous bureaucracy…dominated and controlled by Democrats." As we have come to see, Caulfield was on to something. By contrast with Nixon's failures to misuse the IRS, the IRS has very effectively "screwed" Obama's political opponents, and we have yet to learn what the president knew and when he knew it.

Putting some polemicist's words in a larger font doesn't show that you have any understanding of how ridiculous that comparison is.

Really? You are attempting to talk to me? And your first words are a drive by attempt at smartassery? Whatever floats your boat. I generally do not talk to you or even read your posts. I tend to do that when the person posting never says anything of substance and mostly spends their time insulting the other people on the board. Insulting others by the way, is what people do when they have no facts to back up their opinions.

As to my post, I wouldn't know if the man is a polemicist or not. I haven't read but the one piece by him. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have read more than this one piece, otherwise the word polemicist is not a good fit for this gentleman based off of this blog. Kudos to you for attempting to use big words though. As for the use of bold fonts for those two sentences, well I did that because those were the two relevant parts of the piece. You may have noticed that the other members of the board were discussing Nixon, Watergate,the IRS and the similarities/differences between the current scandal and the one that did Nixon in . Homer was explaining why Watergate was a much bigger deal to him. That was the reason for this sentence: One of the three articles of impeachment charged that President Nixon had attempted to use the IRS against his political opponents. This was simply a reminder to the board of how Nixon was charged. The next highlight was all about what Nixon was attempting to do and that many people believe Obamas administration, if not him, were attempting to misuse the IRS. "Nixon's efforts to misuse the IRS were futile. They went nowhere. Nixon and his henchmen desired the IRS to "screw" their political opponents, but their efforts were a pathetic failure.....By contrast with Nixon's failures to misuse the IRS, the IRS has very effectively "screwed" Obama's political opponents, and we have yet to learn what the president knew and when he knew it."

Now I hope this helps you to understand the context of my post and maybe even the discussion that the adults on the board were having. If you have other insults you would like to hurl my way please feel free. Since I don't care what you have to say to me, or your opinion of me I will simply ignore them as I have previously and continue to skip your posts as I have before. So you have a nice night now

[Kassc22 0]

http://www.powerline...for-dummies.php

POSTED ON MAY 13, 2014 BY SCOTT JOHNSON IN IRS, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SCANDALS

THE IRS SCANDAL FOR DUMMIES

Paul Caron holds down the fort at the TaxProf Blog. On his site he has provided daily compilations of news stories and editorial commentary bearing on the IRS scandal over the past year. He has not otherwise made his point of view on the scandal apparent.

USA Today now runs a useful column by Caron reviewing the scandal. Drawing on his daily compilations, Caron sets out a timeline of key events, going back to Obama's comment in a 2009 commencement address that the IRS would soon be auditing the president of the university and the Board of Regents for refusing to grant him an honorary degree. At the time Glenn Reynolds wrote a prescient Wall Street Journal column: "Tax audits are no laughing matter."

Caron's timeline concludes with a recollection of Watergate:

In that scandal, aggressive reporting by the media and thorough investigations by the FBI, Justice Department and a Senate Select Committee painstakingly uncovered the facts of the illegal break-in at the Democratic National Committee's headquarters months before the 1972 presidential election. One of the three articles of impeachment charged that President Nixon had attempted to use the IRS against his political opponents.

That was then, this is now:

Today's news media are largely ignoring the IRS scandal, and it is impossible to have confidence in the current investigations by the FBI, Justice Department, and House committee. I am not suggesting that the current scandal in the end will rise to the level of Watergate. But the allegations are serious, and fair-minded Americans of both parties should agree that a thorough investigation needs to be undertaken to either debunk them or confirm them.

Caron concludes: "Step one should be to give Lois Lerner full immunity from prosecution in exchange for her testimony. And then let the chips fall where they may."

Caron's column lays out the key elements of the scandal (although he omits any reference to the audits of individual Republican contributors explored by Kim Strassel, as in this column). Caron's column makes a contribution to understanding. I hope interested readers will check it out.

Now with the warrant of Caron's column I add my usual reminder. Nixon's efforts to misuse the IRS were futile. They went nowhere. Nixon and his henchmen desired the IRS to "screw" their political opponents, but their efforts were a pathetic failure.

Nixon henchman Jack Caulfield astutely complained that the IRS was a "monstrous bureaucracy…dominated and controlled by Democrats." As we have come to see, Caulfield was on to something. By contrast with Nixon's failures to misuse the IRS, the IRS has very effectively "screwed" Obama's political opponents, and we have yet to learn what the president knew and when he knew it.

Putting some polemicist's words in a larger font doesn't show that you have any understanding of how ridiculous that comparison is.

She is trying to get you to see that there is a huge difference in the content of the charges.

Trying to use the IRS vs Actually using the IRS.

I think most adults are now getting the real sense of what happened here.

I knew you would get it.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

http://www.powerline...for-dummies.php

POSTED ON MAY 13, 2014 BY SCOTT JOHNSON IN IRS, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SCANDALS

THE IRS SCANDAL FOR DUMMIES

Paul Caron holds down the fort at the TaxProf Blog. On his site he has provided daily compilations of news stories and editorial commentary bearing on the IRS scandal over the past year. He has not otherwise made his point of view on the scandal apparent.

USA Today now runs a useful column by Caron reviewing the scandal. Drawing on his daily compilations, Caron sets out a timeline of key events, going back to Obama's comment in a 2009 commencement address that the IRS would soon be auditing the president of the university and the Board of Regents for refusing to grant him an honorary degree. At the time Glenn Reynolds wrote a prescient Wall Street Journal column: "Tax audits are no laughing matter."

Caron's timeline concludes with a recollection of Watergate:

In that scandal, aggressive reporting by the media and thorough investigations by the FBI, Justice Department and a Senate Select Committee painstakingly uncovered the facts of the illegal break-in at the Democratic National Committee's headquarters months before the 1972 presidential election. One of the three articles of impeachment charged that President Nixon had attempted to use the IRS against his political opponents.

That was then, this is now:

Today's news media are largely ignoring the IRS scandal, and it is impossible to have confidence in the current investigations by the FBI, Justice Department, and House committee. I am not suggesting that the current scandal in the end will rise to the level of Watergate. But the allegations are serious, and fair-minded Americans of both parties should agree that a thorough investigation needs to be undertaken to either debunk them or confirm them.

Caron concludes: "Step one should be to give Lois Lerner full immunity from prosecution in exchange for her testimony. And then let the chips fall where they may."

Caron's column lays out the key elements of the scandal (although he omits any reference to the audits of individual Republican contributors explored by Kim Strassel, as in this column). Caron's column makes a contribution to understanding. I hope interested readers will check it out.

Now with the warrant of Caron's column I add my usual reminder. Nixon's efforts to misuse the IRS were futile. They went nowhere. Nixon and his henchmen desired the IRS to "screw" their political opponents, but their efforts were a pathetic failure.

Nixon henchman Jack Caulfield astutely complained that the IRS was a "monstrous bureaucracy…dominated and controlled by Democrats." As we have come to see, Caulfield was on to something. By contrast with Nixon's failures to misuse the IRS, the IRS has very effectively "screwed" Obama's political opponents, and we have yet to learn what the president knew and when he knew it.

Putting some polemicist's words in a larger font doesn't show that you have any understanding of how ridiculous that comparison is.

Really? You are attempting to talk to me? And your first words are a drive by attempt at smartassery? Whatever floats your boat. I generally do not talk to you or even read your posts. I tend to do that when the person posting never says anything of substance and mostly spends their time insulting the other people on the board. Insulting others by the way, is what people do when they have no facts to back up their opinions.

As to my post, I wouldn't know if the man is a polemicist or not. I haven't read but the one piece by him. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have read more than this one piece, otherwise the word polemicist is not a good fit for this gentleman based off of this blog. Kudos to you for attempting to use big words though. :jossun:/> As for the use of bold fonts for those two sentences, well I did that because those were the two relevant parts of the piece. You may have noticed that the other members of the board were discussing Nixon, Watergate,the IRS and the similarities/differences between the current scandal and the one that did Nixon in . Homer was explaining why Watergate was a much bigger deal to him. That was the reason for this sentence: One of the three articles of impeachment charged that President Nixon had attempted to use the IRS against his political opponents. This was simply a reminder to the board of how Nixon was charged. The next highlight was all about what Nixon was attempting to do and that many people believe Obamas administration, if not him, were attempting to misuse the IRS. "Nixon's efforts to misuse the IRS were futile. They went nowhere. Nixon and his henchmen desired the IRS to "screw" their political opponents, but their efforts were a pathetic failure.....By contrast with Nixon's failures to misuse the IRS, the IRS has very effectively "screwed" Obama's political opponents, and we have yet to learn what the president knew and when he knew it."

Now I hope this helps you to understand the context of my post and maybe even the discussion that the adults on the board were having. If you have other insults you would like to hurl my way please feel free. Since I don't care what you have to say to me, or your opinion of me I will simply ignore them as I have previously and continue to skip your posts as I have before. So you have a nice night now :Sing:/>

That's a lot more words by you , but no real substance. You clarified for me that you don't understand the charge against Nixon, though . Thanks. You can go back to ignoring me now.

[DKW 86 7,426]

That's a lot more words by you , but no real substance. You clarified for me that you don't understand the charge against Nixon, though . Thanks. You can go back to ignoring me now.

Okay then Tex, explain the charge against Nixon.

Nixon TRIED to use the IRS, Obama looks like he actually DID use the IRS.

Tell us the difference.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Okay then Tex, explain the charge against Nixon.

Nixon TRIED to use the IRS, Obama looks like he actually DID use the IRS.

Tell us the difference.

Obama is a socialist. And he's black. The media love those things about Obama, so they'll not tarnish him, no matter what.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

That's a lot more words by you , but no real substance. You clarified for me that you don't understand the charge against Nixon, though . Thanks. You can go back to ignoring me now.

Okay then Tex, explain the charge against Nixon.

Nixon TRIED to use the IRS, Obama looks like he actually DID use the IRS.

Tell us the difference.

Get beyond that incredibly simplistic rhetoric that could fit on a bumper sticker and do some homework into the actual facts behind Nixon's charge-- then do some meaningful analysis of the two. There's no substitute for that.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Okay then Tex, explain the charge against Nixon.

Nixon TRIED to use the IRS, Obama looks like he actually DID use the IRS.

Tell us the difference.

Obama is a socialist. And he's black. The media love those things about Obama, so they'll not tarnish him, no matter what.

Yes, socialists and blacks have long dominated our society. The media is directly responsible for elevating the status of socialists and blacks. Worse yet, the media has diminished, if not dismissed the roles of whites and conservatives. :-\

Ignorance on display.

[homersapien 11,385]

http://www.powerline...for-dummies.php

POSTED ON MAY 13, 2014 BY SCOTT JOHNSON IN IRS, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SCANDALS

THE IRS SCANDAL FOR DUMMIES

Paul Caron holds down the fort at the TaxProf Blog. On his site he has provided daily compilations of news stories and editorial commentary bearing on the IRS scandal over the past year. He has not otherwise made his point of view on the scandal apparent.

USA Today now runs a useful column by Caron reviewing the scandal. Drawing on his daily compilations, Caron sets out a timeline of key events, going back to Obama's comment in a 2009 commencement address that the IRS would soon be auditing the president of the university and the Board of Regents for refusing to grant him an honorary degree. At the time Glenn Reynolds wrote a prescient Wall Street Journal column: "Tax audits are no laughing matter."

Caron's timeline concludes with a recollection of Watergate:

In that scandal, aggressive reporting by the media and thorough investigations by the FBI, Justice Department and a Senate Select Committee painstakingly uncovered the facts of the illegal break-in at the Democratic National Committee's headquarters months before the 1972 presidential election. One of the three articles of impeachment charged that President Nixon had attempted to use the IRS against his political opponents.

That was then, this is now:

Today's news media are largely ignoring the IRS scandal, and it is impossible to have confidence in the current investigations by the FBI, Justice Department, and House committee. I am not suggesting that the current scandal in the end will rise to the level of Watergate. But the allegations are serious, and fair-minded Americans of both parties should agree that a thorough investigation needs to be undertaken to either debunk them or confirm them.

Caron concludes: "Step one should be to give Lois Lerner full immunity from prosecution in exchange for her testimony. And then let the chips fall where they may."

Caron's column lays out the key elements of the scandal (although he omits any reference to the audits of individual Republican contributors explored by Kim Strassel, as in this column). Caron's column makes a contribution to understanding. I hope interested readers will check it out.

Now with the warrant of Caron's column I add my usual reminder. Nixon's efforts to misuse the IRS were futile. They went nowhere. Nixon and his henchmen desired the IRS to "screw" their political opponents, but their efforts were a pathetic failure.

Nixon henchman Jack Caulfield astutely complained that the IRS was a "monstrous bureaucracy…dominated and controlled by Democrats." As we have come to see, Caulfield was on to something. By contrast with Nixon's failures to misuse the IRS, the IRS has very effectively "screwed" Obama's political opponents, and we have yet to learn what the president knew and when he knew it.

Putting some polemicist's words in a larger font doesn't show that you have any understanding of how ridiculous that comparison is.

She is trying to get you to see that there is a huge difference in the content of the charges.

Trying to use the IRS vs Actually using the IRS.

I think most adults are now getting the real sense of what happened here.

1. The attempt by Nixon to use the IRS was clearly meant to attack individuals. As far as we know, the only thing the IRS did in this case is to audit supposedly non-political organizations.

2. Nixon was not impeached for his failed attempts to use the IRS. It was included because the information came to light, but it's not at the root of the Watergate scandal.

3.The conclusion the IRS has "screwed" Obama's opponents is without actual merit.

4. This was in fact an article written by a political polemicist with the obvious purpose of making a connection between what Nixon attempted to do and what the IRS did in this case, when there is no real parallel or connection other than the IRS.

[DKW 86 7,426]

1. The attempt by Nixon to use the IRS was clearly meant to attack individuals. As far as we know, the only thing the IRS did in this case is to audit supposedly non-political organizations.

Where in the world did you get that from?

The Tea Party Folks were singled out specifically for their views and politics.

2. Nixon was not impeached for his failed attempts to use the IRS. It was included because the information came to light, but it's not at the root of the Watergate scandal.

It was never "proven" then either.

3.The conclusion the IRS has "screwed" Obama's opponents is without actual merit.

AT THIS TIME! The idea that Obama's opponents has not been investigated fully and has in fact been obstructed by the Admin and the IRS, just like in Watergate. The really accurate parallel is that we are talking mid-points on the IRS Scandal, not the conclusion as in Watergate. The answer to the 18 minute gap on the tapes and the supposedly LOST now found emails are strikingly similar.

4. This was in fact an article written by a political polemicist with the obvious purpose of making a connection between what Nixon attempted to do and what the IRS did in this case, when there is no real parallel or connection other than the IRS.

AT THIS TIME...

[TexasTiger 12,947]

1. The attempt by Nixon to use the IRS was clearly meant to attack individuals. As far as we know, the only thing the IRS did in this case is to audit supposedly non-political organizations.

Where in the world did you get that from?

The Tea Party Folks were singled out specifically for their views and politics.

I'm not sure "audited " is the correct term in regard to these organizations because what has been highlighted in the news are organizations seeking tax exempt status being tagged for review.

[TheBlueVue 177]

1. The attempt by Nixon to use the IRS was clearly meant to attack individuals. As far as we know, the only thing the IRS did in this case is to audit supposedly non-political organizations.

Where in the world did you get that from?

The Tea Party Folks were singled out specifically for their views and politics.

I'm not sure "audited " is the correct term in regard to these organizations because what has been highlighted in the news are organizations seeking tax exempt status being tagged for review.

Actually True The Vote,a Tea Party activist group, was not only audited by the IRS but also received visits from OSHA, the EPA, and the FBI. Im sure it was just another "coincidence"..are't you?

[homersapien 11,385]

1. The attempt by Nixon to use the IRS was clearly meant to attack individuals. As far as we know, the only thing the IRS did in this case is to audit supposedly non-political organizations.

Where in the world did you get that from?

The Tea Party Folks were singled out specifically for their views and politics.

2. Nixon was not impeached for his failed attempts to use the IRS. It was included because the information came to light, but it's not at the root of the Watergate scandal.

It was never "proven" then either.

3.The conclusion the IRS has "screwed" Obama's opponents is without actual merit.

AT THIS TIME! The idea that Obama's opponents has not been investigated fully and has in fact been obstructed by the Admin and the IRS, just like in Watergate. The really accurate parallel is that we are talking mid-points on the IRS Scandal, not the conclusion as in Watergate. The answer to the 18 minute gap on the tapes and the supposedly LOST now found emails are strikingly similar.

4. This was in fact an article written by a political polemicist with the obvious purpose of making a connection between what Nixon attempted to do and what the IRS did in this case, when there is no real parallel or connection other than the IRS.

AT THIS TIME...

Nothing you said above refuted my post.

[homersapien 11,385]

1. The attempt by Nixon to use the IRS was clearly meant to attack individuals. As far as we know, the only thing the IRS did in this case is to audit supposedly non-political organizations.

Where in the world did you get that from?

The Tea Party Folks were singled out specifically for their views and politics.

I'm not sure "audited " is the correct term in regard to these organizations because what has been highlighted in the news are organizations seeking tax exempt status being tagged for review.

I stand corrected. I used the term "audit" casually.

[AUtiger98 24]

1. The attempt by Nixon to use the IRS was clearly meant to attack individuals. As far as we know, the only thing the IRS did in this case is to audit supposedly non-political organizations.

Where in the world did you get that from?

The Tea Party Folks were singled out specifically for their views and politics.

I'm not sure "audited " is the correct term in regard to these organizations because what has been highlighted in the news are organizations seeking tax exempt status being tagged for review.

TT that is correct. Now if we can just determine who requested the reviews which prevented these groups from organizing while the president was trying to get re-elected.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

1. The attempt by Nixon to use the IRS was clearly meant to attack individuals. As far as we know, the only thing the IRS did in this case is to audit supposedly non-political organizations.

Where in the world did you get that from?

The Tea Party Folks were singled out specifically for their views and politics.

I'm not sure "audited " is the correct term in regard to these organizations because what has been highlighted in the news are organizations seeking tax exempt status being tagged for review.

TT that is correct. Now if we can just determine who requested the reviews which prevented these groups from organizing while the president was trying to get re-elected.

Which groups were prevented from organizing? They just wanted to avoid paying taxes.

[TheBlueVue 177]

1. The attempt by Nixon to use the IRS was clearly meant to attack individuals. As far as we know, the only thing the IRS did in this case is to audit supposedly non-political organizations.

Where in the world did you get that from?

The Tea Party Folks were singled out specifically for their views and politics.

I'm not sure "audited " is the correct term in regard to these organizations because what has been highlighted in the news are organizations seeking tax exempt status being tagged for review.

TT that is correct. Now if we can just determine who requested the reviews which prevented these groups from organizing while the president was trying to get re-elected.

Which groups were prevented from organizing? They just wanted to avoid paying taxes.

1. The attempt by Nixon to use the IRS was clearly meant to attack individuals. As far as we know, the only thing the IRS did in this case is to audit supposedly non-political organizations.

Where in the world did you get that from?

The Tea Party Folks were singled out specifically for their views and politics.

I'm not sure "audited " is the correct term in regard to these organizations because what has been highlighted in the news are organizations seeking tax exempt status being tagged for review.

TT that is correct. Now if we can just determine who requested the reviews which prevented these groups from organizing while the president was trying to get re-elected.

Which groups were prevented from organizing? They just wanted to avoid paying taxes.

As I have already pointed out, you have no clue what this issue is all about. True the Vote contributions were made with "after tax" money...it was NOT tax free money . This Tea Party group wanted the same treatment other 401c status groups have been granted...NOTHING more NOR less. Taxing that money again simply because they wanted to contribute it a Tea Party group again is double taxation.

Secondly, it was the INTENT of the IRS to make life as difficult as possible for ALL the groups on their bolo list. Thats NOT their job bud.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

1. The attempt by Nixon to use the IRS was clearly meant to attack individuals. As far as we know, the only thing the IRS did in this case is to audit supposedly non-political organizations.

Where in the world did you get that from?

The Tea Party Folks were singled out specifically for their views and politics.

I'm not sure "audited " is the correct term in regard to these organizations because what has been highlighted in the news are organizations seeking tax exempt status being tagged for review.

TT that is correct. Now if we can just determine who requested the reviews which prevented these groups from organizing while the president was trying to get re-elected.

Which groups were prevented from organizing? They just wanted to avoid paying taxes.

1. The attempt by Nixon to use the IRS was clearly meant to attack individuals. As far as we know, the only thing the IRS did in this case is to audit supposedly non-political organizations.

Where in the world did you get that from?

The Tea Party Folks were singled out specifically for their views and politics.

I'm not sure "audited " is the correct term in regard to these organizations because what has been highlighted in the news are organizations seeking tax exempt status being tagged for review.

TT that is correct. Now if we can just determine who requested the reviews which prevented these groups from organizing while the president was trying to get re-elected.

Which groups were prevented from organizing? They just wanted to avoid paying taxes.

As I have already pointed out, you have no clue what this issue is all about. True the Vote contributions were made with "after tax" money...it was NOT tax free money . This Tea Party group wanted the same treatment other 401c status groups have been granted...NOTHING more NOR less. Taxing that money again simply because they wanted to contribute it a Tea Party group again is double taxation.

Secondly, it was the INTENT of the IRS to make life as difficult as possible for ALL the groups on their bolo list. Thats NOT their job bud.

Your understanding of this matter is on par with most matters.