The Smoking Gun is getting Hotter

[homersapien 11,385]

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

Actually, I'll come to Blues defense. I think he (at least) understood the direct question.

He can't answer because his premise - these groups were prevented from organizing - is false. That's why he's being evasive.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

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

Actually, I'll come to Blues defense. I think he (at least) understood the direct question.

He can't answer because his premise - these groups were prevented from organizing - is false. That's why he's being evasive.

I think you are both correct.

[TheBlueVue 177]

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

Actually, I'll come to Blues defense. I think he (at least) understood the direct question.

He can't answer because his premise - these groups were prevented from organizing - is false. That's why he's being evasive.

Wrong again. These people were targeted by the IRS because they were a conservative activist group. Ive never contended otherwise or anything more. They were stonewalled JUST because they were on the bolo list..thats all. They were able to organize but were being denied the same consideration simply because of presumed political differences

[TexasTiger 12,947]

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

Actually, I'll come to Blues defense. I think he (at least) understood the direct question.

He can't answer because his premise - these groups were prevented from organizing - is false. That's why he's being evasive.

Wrong again. These people were targeted by the IRS because they were a conservative activist group. Ive never contended otherwise or anything more. They were stonewalled JUST because they were on the bolo list..thats all. They were able to organize but were being denied the same consideration simply because of presumed political differences

IRS department determining non political tax exempt status: "we're getting a lot of groups with 'Tea Party' in their name claiming to be non political-- seems to strain credulity. Let's make sure they're legit."

Politically motivated or sound logic?

[TheBlueVue 177]

"IRS department determining non political tax exempt status: "we're getting a lot of groups with 'Tea Party' in their name claiming to be non political-- seems to strain credulity. Let's make sure they're legit."

Politically motivated or sound logic?"

True the Vote has nothing in its name referring to the Tea Party. Even after the IRS has apologized for targeting conservative groups, you're still trying to make excuses for them as if they are being unfairly condemned for something they did not do. Unbelievable.

[Kassc22 0]

"IRS department determining non political tax exempt status: "we're getting a lot of groups with 'Tea Party' in their name claiming to be non political-- seems to strain credulity. Let's make sure they're legit."

Politically motivated or sound logic?"

True the Vote has nothing in its name referring to the Tea Party. Even after the IRS has apologized for targeting conservative groups, you're still trying to make excuses for them as if they are being unfairly condemned for something they did not do. Unbelievable.

There seems to be an inordinate focus on just the Tea Party here. It wasn't just the words Tea Party that the IRS went after. I generally dislike using Wikipedia but since this seems to be sourced well I will use it. There is more under the complete article. There is also the usual information that claims liberal groups were also targeted but it is obvious they didn't have this level.

Beginning in March 2010, the IRS more closely scrutinized certain organizations applying for tax-exempt status under sections 501©(3) and 501©(4) of the Internal Revenue Code by focusing on groups with certain words in their names.[45][46][47] In May 2010, some employees of the "Determinations Unit" of the Cincinnati office of the IRS, which is tasked with reviewing applications pertaining to tax-exempt status, began developing a spreadsheet that became known as the "Be On the Look Out" list.

The list, first distributed in August 2010, suggested intensive scrutiny of applicants with names related to a number of political causes, including names related to the Tea Party movement and other conservative causes.[47] Eventually, IRS employees in at least Cincinnati, Ohio; El Monte, California; Laguna Niguel, California; and Washington, D.C.[48] applied closer scrutiny to applications from organizations that:[49][50][51]

referenced words such as "Tea Party", "Patriots", or "9/12 Project", "progressive," "occupy," "Israel," "open source software," "medical marijuana" and "occupied territory advocacy" in the case file;[46][47]

outlined issues in the application that included government spending, government debt, or taxes;

involved advocating or lobbying to "make America a better place to live";

had statements in the case file that criticized how the country is being run;

advocated education about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights;

were focused on challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — known by many as Obamacare;

questioned the integrity of federal elections.

Media Trackers, a conservative organization, applied to the IRS for recognition of tax-exempt status, and received no response after waiting 16 months. When the organization's founder, Drew Ryun, applied for permanent tax-exempt status for an existing tax-exempt organization with what he said was a "liberal-sounding name" ("Greenhouse Solutions"), that application was approved in three weeks. Ryun has stated he believes that Greenhouse Solutions benefited from its name (although the quick approval might also be due to the fact that Greenhouse Solutions was already operating as a nonprofit and was already on-file with the IRS.)[56] Catherine Engelbrecht, founder of conservative group True the Vote, filed a lawsuit claiming that her organization's tax-exempt status was unfairly delayed for three years, and alleging that she and her family's small manufacturing business were chosen for retaliatory investigations by the IRS, OSHA, the ATF, and the FBI.[57][58][59]

Some flagged organizations were required to provide further documentation in requests that Rep. Bill Flores called "overreaching and impossible to comply with".[61] Documentation requested varied among different groups but, in some cases, included copies of "any contracts" or "training material" the groups may have exchanged with Koch foundations.[62] Some organizations were asked what books their members were reading, as well as what they had posted on social networking websites, according to Politico.[63] Organizations were informed that if they did not provide the information sought, they would not be certified as tax-exempt.

Another question asked of some unidentified applicants was:

Provide the following information for the income you received and raised for the years from inception to the present. Also, provide the same information for the income you expect to receive and raise for 2012, 2013, and 2014.

a. Donations, contributions, and grant income for each year, which includes the following information:

The names of the donors, contributors, and grantors. If the donor, contributor, or grantor has run or will run for a public office, identify the office. If not, please confirm by answering this question "No".

The amounts of each of the donations, contributions, and grants and the dates you received them.

How did you use these donations, contributions, and grants? Provide the details.

If you did not receive or do not expect to receive any donation, contribution, and grant income, please confirm by answering "None received" and/or "None expected".[19]

The Tennessee organization Linchpins of Liberty, which mentored high school and college students, was asked the following:

23. Has any person or organization provided educational services to you? If yes, provide the following:

a) The name of the person or organization.

A full description of the services provided.

c) The political affiliation of the person or organization.

24. Provide all details regarding training you have provided or will provide. Indicate who has received or will receive the training and provide copies of the training material.[64]

Another unidentified applicant was asked to "Please provide copies of all your current web pages, including your Blog posts. Please provide copies of all of your newsletters, bulletins, flyers, newsletters or any other media or literature you have disseminated to your members or others. Please provide copies of stories and articles that have been published about you."[65]

The Coalition for Life of Iowa, a pro-life group, was asked to "Please explain how all of your activities, including the prayer meetings held outside of Planned Parenthood are considered educational as defined under 501©(3). Organizations exempt under 501©(3) may present opinions with scientific or medical facts. Please explain in detail the activities at these prayer meetings. Also, please provide the percentage of time your group spends on prayer groups as compared with other activities of the organization."[66] While questioning then-Acting Commissioner of the IRS, Steven T. Miller, on May 17, 2013, Congressman Aaron Schock (R-IL), referring to a report[67] by the conservative, non-profit law firm, the Thomas More Society, misquoted one of the questions asked of the coalition as "please detail the content of the members of your organization's prayers." Schock went on to ask, "Would that be an inappropriate question to a 501©(3) applicant? The content of one's prayers?" Miller replied, "It pains me to say I can't speak to that one either." Upon further questioning by Schock, Miller stated that it would "surprise him" if that question were asked.[68] Schock's characterization of the question was included in news reports[66][68] and was repeated by conservative commentators.[69][70]

Improper document leaks

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has alleged that the IRS intentionally leaked its 2008 tax return, including donor lists — an act prohibited by federal law.[71][72][73] In a lawsuit filed on May 15, 2013, NOM alleged that, in the words of chairman John C. Eastman, "This wasn't a low-level error in judgment; it was a conscious act to reward a prominent Obama supporter while punishing an opponent."[74][75] Former NOM chairwoman Maggie Gallagher stated on May 10, 2013, however, that an IRS employee had been duped into releasing the documents by someone who fraudulently claimed to work for NOM.[76] However, she later stated that that was "only a theory", and that she believed the matter needs further investigation.

During the period in which the applications were being scrutinized, the Cincinnati office of the IRS violated policy by releasing nine confidential pending applications from conservative groups to ProPublica, an investigative reporting organization.[21] ProPublica had made a records request to the office seeking only completed applications, which are public information.

On June 24, 2014 the IRS admitted wrongdoing in the case and paid the organization $50,000 in actual damages. [77]

[homersapien 11,385]

"IRS department determining non political tax exempt status: "we're getting a lot of groups with 'Tea Party' in their name claiming to be non political-- seems to strain credulity. Let's make sure they're legit."

Politically motivated or sound logic?"

True the Vote has nothing in its name referring to the Tea Party. Even after the IRS has apologized for targeting conservative groups, you're still trying to make excuses for them as if they are being unfairly condemned for something they did not do. Unbelievable.

Yeah, who could imagine a group called "True the Vote" could be anything but non-political?

[DKW 86 7,426]

http://talkingpoints...ce-at-tax-panel

"Lois, a few months ago there were some concerns about the IRS's review of 501©(4) organizations, of applications from tea party organizations," Celia Roady, a veteran tax lawyer, asked Lois Lerner, head of the IRS' tax-exempt organizations division, a few minutes after Lerner finished giving prepared remarks. "I was just wondering if you could provide an update."

The name of the panel was "News From The IRS And Treasury." But few, if any, of those present could have anticipated the kind of news Lerner would make with her response to Roady's question.

Lerner began by describing the increase in 501©(4) applications the IRS received between 2010 and 2012. IRS employees in Cincinnati, Lerner said, had reacted by centralizing the applications for efficiency and consistency, something the IRS did "whenever we see an uptick in a new kind of application or something we haven't seen before." But in this case, Lerner said, the centralization had not been carried out properly.

"Instead of referring to the cases as advocacy cases, they actually used case names on this list," Lerner said, according to a transcript of the meeting. "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."

"

Seems you three clowns need to just look at the record. Even Lerner admits it "was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate -- that's not how we go about selecting cases for further review."

http://www.factcheck...ongress-public/

• 
  
  • Lerner told a House committee in May 2012 that the IRS is justified in requesting information from conservative groups about their donors and policy interests in certain cases. That’s true, but she failed to disclose that nearly a year earlier she learned that IRS staffers in Ohio were making what she deemed “unnecessary” requests for such information in dozens of instances.
    
  • Lerner blamed a heavy workload for the problem, telling reporters that the applications for 501©(4) nonprofit status had “more than doubled,” from 1,500 in 2010 to over 3,400 in 2012. That’s true, but use of the “inappropriate criteria” began in March 2010 and 501©(4) applications declined (When this was actually going on...) in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2010, according to the inspector general’s report.
    

I dont know which one of you three is Larry, Moe, or Curly but i do know you are all up for stooge awards on this topic.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

http://talkingpoints...ce-at-tax-panel

"Lois, a few months ago there were some concerns about the IRS's review of 501©(4) organizations, of applications from tea party organizations," Celia Roady, a veteran tax lawyer, asked Lois Lerner, head of the IRS' tax-exempt organizations division, a few minutes after Lerner finished giving prepared remarks. "I was just wondering if you could provide an update."

The name of the panel was "News From The IRS And Treasury." But few, if any, of those present could have anticipated the kind of news Lerner would make with her response to Roady's question.

Lerner began by describing the increase in 501©(4) applications the IRS received between 2010 and 2012. IRS employees in Cincinnati, Lerner said, had reacted by centralizing the applications for efficiency and consistency, something the IRS did "whenever we see an uptick in a new kind of application or something we haven't seen before." But in this case, Lerner said, the centralization had not been carried out properly.

"Instead of referring to the cases as advocacy cases, they actually used case names on this list," Lerner said, according to a transcript of the meeting. "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."

"

Seems you three clowns need to just look at the record. Even Lerner admits it "was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate -- that's not how we go about selecting cases for further review."

http://www.factcheck...ongress-public/

• 
  
  • Lerner told a House committee in May 2012 that the IRS is justified in requesting information from conservative groups about their donors and policy interests in certain cases. That’s true, but she failed to disclose that nearly a year earlier she learned that IRS staffers in Ohio were making what she deemed “unnecessary” requests for such information in dozens of instances.
    
  • Lerner blamed a heavy workload for the problem, telling reporters that the applications for 501©(4) nonprofit status had “more than doubled,” from 1,500 in 2010 to over 3,400 in 2012. That’s true, but use of the “inappropriate criteria” began in March 2010 and 501©(4) applications declined (When this was actually going on...) in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2010, according to the inspector general’s report.
    

I dont know which one of you three is Larry, Moe, or Curly but i do know you are all up for stooge awards on this topic.

I don't disagree that it was inappropriate, insensitive and incorrect-- but worse than Watergate? SMH. You win the crazy award.

[DKW 86 7,426]

http://talkingpoints...ce-at-tax-panel

"Lois, a few months ago there were some concerns about the IRS's review of 501©(4) organizations, of applications from tea party organizations," Celia Roady, a veteran tax lawyer, asked Lois Lerner, head of the IRS' tax-exempt organizations division, a few minutes after Lerner finished giving prepared remarks. "I was just wondering if you could provide an update."

The name of the panel was "News From The IRS And Treasury." But few, if any, of those present could have anticipated the kind of news Lerner would make with her response to Roady's question.

Lerner began by describing the increase in 501©(4) applications the IRS received between 2010 and 2012. IRS employees in Cincinnati, Lerner said, had reacted by centralizing the applications for efficiency and consistency, something the IRS did "whenever we see an uptick in a new kind of application or something we haven't seen before." But in this case, Lerner said, the centralization had not been carried out properly.

"Instead of referring to the cases as advocacy cases, they actually used case names on this list," Lerner said, according to a transcript of the meeting. "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."

"

Seems you three clowns need to just look at the record. Even Lerner admits it "was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate -- that's not how we go about selecting cases for further review."

http://www.factcheck...ongress-public/

• 
  
  • Lerner told a House committee in May 2012 that the IRS is justified in requesting information from conservative groups about their donors and policy interests in certain cases. That's true, but she failed to disclose that nearly a year earlier she learned that IRS staffers in Ohio were making what she deemed "unnecessary" requests for such information in dozens of instances.
    
  • Lerner blamed a heavy workload for the problem, telling reporters that the applications for 501©(4) nonprofit status had "more than doubled," from 1,500 in 2010 to over 3,400 in 2012. That's true, but use of the "inappropriate criteria" began in March 2010 and 501©(4) applications declined (When this was actually going on...) in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2010, according to the inspector general's report.
    

I dont know which one of you three is Larry, Moe, or Curly but i do know you are all up for stooge awards on this topic.

I don't disagree that it was inappropriate, insensitive and incorrect-- but worse than Watergate? SMH. You win the crazy award.

Once again Tex, love you man, but this investigation is nowhere near halftime yet. Watergate has been over for 40 years.

This one is just getting going good. If the Republicans take control of the Senate, watchout, there may be hell to pay with a looming Special Prosecutor.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

http://talkingpoints...ce-at-tax-panel

"Lois, a few months ago there were some concerns about the IRS's review of 501©(4) organizations, of applications from tea party organizations," Celia Roady, a veteran tax lawyer, asked Lois Lerner, head of the IRS' tax-exempt organizations division, a few minutes after Lerner finished giving prepared remarks. "I was just wondering if you could provide an update."

The name of the panel was "News From The IRS And Treasury." But few, if any, of those present could have anticipated the kind of news Lerner would make with her response to Roady's question.

Lerner began by describing the increase in 501©(4) applications the IRS received between 2010 and 2012. IRS employees in Cincinnati, Lerner said, had reacted by centralizing the applications for efficiency and consistency, something the IRS did "whenever we see an uptick in a new kind of application or something we haven't seen before." But in this case, Lerner said, the centralization had not been carried out properly.

"Instead of referring to the cases as advocacy cases, they actually used case names on this list," Lerner said, according to a transcript of the meeting. "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."

"

Seems you three clowns need to just look at the record. Even Lerner admits it "was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate -- that's not how we go about selecting cases for further review."

http://www.factcheck...ongress-public/

• 
  
  • Lerner told a House committee in May 2012 that the IRS is justified in requesting information from conservative groups about their donors and policy interests in certain cases. That's true, but she failed to disclose that nearly a year earlier she learned that IRS staffers in Ohio were making what she deemed "unnecessary" requests for such information in dozens of instances.
    
  • Lerner blamed a heavy workload for the problem, telling reporters that the applications for 501©(4) nonprofit status had "more than doubled," from 1,500 in 2010 to over 3,400 in 2012. That's true, but use of the "inappropriate criteria" began in March 2010 and 501©(4) applications declined (When this was actually going on...) in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2010, according to the inspector general's report.
    

I dont know which one of you three is Larry, Moe, or Curly but i do know you are all up for stooge awards on this topic.

I don't disagree that it was inappropriate, insensitive and incorrect-- but worse than Watergate? SMH. You win the crazy award.

Once again Tex, love you man, but this investigations is nowhere near halftime yet. Watergate has been over for 40 years.

This one is just getting going good. If the Republicans take control of the Senate, watchout, there may be hell to pay with a looming Special Prosecutor.

Make it the #1 priority.

[TheBlueVue 177]

http://talkingpoints...ce-at-tax-panel

"Lois, a few months ago there were some concerns about the IRS's review of 501©(4) organizations, of applications from tea party organizations," Celia Roady, a veteran tax lawyer, asked Lois Lerner, head of the IRS' tax-exempt organizations division, a few minutes after Lerner finished giving prepared remarks. "I was just wondering if you could provide an update."

The name of the panel was "News From The IRS And Treasury." But few, if any, of those present could have anticipated the kind of news Lerner would make with her response to Roady's question.

Lerner began by describing the increase in 501©(4) applications the IRS received between 2010 and 2012. IRS employees in Cincinnati, Lerner said, had reacted by centralizing the applications for efficiency and consistency, something the IRS did "whenever we see an uptick in a new kind of application or something we haven't seen before." But in this case, Lerner said, the centralization had not been carried out properly.

"Instead of referring to the cases as advocacy cases, they actually used case names on this list," Lerner said, according to a transcript of the meeting. "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."

"

Seems you three clowns need to just look at the record. Even Lerner admits it "was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate -- that's not how we go about selecting cases for further review."

http://www.factcheck...ongress-public/

• 
  
  • Lerner told a House committee in May 2012 that the IRS is justified in requesting information from conservative groups about their donors and policy interests in certain cases. That's true, but she failed to disclose that nearly a year earlier she learned that IRS staffers in Ohio were making what she deemed "unnecessary" requests for such information in dozens of instances.
    
  • Lerner blamed a heavy workload for the problem, telling reporters that the applications for 501©(4) nonprofit status had "more than doubled," from 1,500 in 2010 to over 3,400 in 2012. That's true, but use of the "inappropriate criteria" began in March 2010 and 501©(4) applications declined (When this was actually going on...) in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2010, according to the inspector general's report.
    

I dont know which one of you three is Larry, Moe, or Curly but i do know you are all up for stooge awards on this topic.

I don't disagree that it was inappropriate, insensitive and incorrect-- but worse than Watergate? SMH. You win the crazy award.

Once again Tex, love you man, but this investigations is nowhere near halftime yet. Watergate has been over for 40 years.

This one is just getting going good. If the Republicans take control of the Senate, watchout, there may be hell to pay with a looming Special Prosecutor.

Make it the #1 priority.

The Pres says there's there's not even a smidgeon of corruption which is quite fascinating.If he wasn't a party to it, which you are absolutely convinced he was not, how in the world would he know that? I will give him credit for one thing, he has done EVERYTHING in his presidential power to convince the American people, it is a "phony scandal". My response to that is, with the 5th amendment pleas and the continued lying, I wouldn't be quite as smug as you, quite clearly, are.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

http://talkingpoints...ce-at-tax-panel

"Lois, a few months ago there were some concerns about the IRS's review of 501©(4) organizations, of applications from tea party organizations," Celia Roady, a veteran tax lawyer, asked Lois Lerner, head of the IRS' tax-exempt organizations division, a few minutes after Lerner finished giving prepared remarks. "I was just wondering if you could provide an update."

The name of the panel was "News From The IRS And Treasury." But few, if any, of those present could have anticipated the kind of news Lerner would make with her response to Roady's question.

Lerner began by describing the increase in 501©(4) applications the IRS received between 2010 and 2012. IRS employees in Cincinnati, Lerner said, had reacted by centralizing the applications for efficiency and consistency, something the IRS did "whenever we see an uptick in a new kind of application or something we haven't seen before." But in this case, Lerner said, the centralization had not been carried out properly.

"Instead of referring to the cases as advocacy cases, they actually used case names on this list," Lerner said, according to a transcript of the meeting. "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."

"

Seems you three clowns need to just look at the record. Even Lerner admits it "was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate -- that's not how we go about selecting cases for further review."

http://www.factcheck...ongress-public/

• 
  
  • Lerner told a House committee in May 2012 that the IRS is justified in requesting information from conservative groups about their donors and policy interests in certain cases. That's true, but she failed to disclose that nearly a year earlier she learned that IRS staffers in Ohio were making what she deemed "unnecessary" requests for such information in dozens of instances.
    
  • Lerner blamed a heavy workload for the problem, telling reporters that the applications for 501©(4) nonprofit status had "more than doubled," from 1,500 in 2010 to over 3,400 in 2012. That's true, but use of the "inappropriate criteria" began in March 2010 and 501©(4) applications declined (When this was actually going on...) in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2010, according to the inspector general's report.
    

I dont know which one of you three is Larry, Moe, or Curly but i do know you are all up for stooge awards on this topic.

I don't disagree that it was inappropriate, insensitive and incorrect-- but worse than Watergate? SMH. You win the crazy award.

Once again Tex, love you man, but this investigations is nowhere near halftime yet. Watergate has been over for 40 years.

This one is just getting going good. If the Republicans take control of the Senate, watchout, there may be hell to pay with a looming Special Prosecutor.

Make it the #1 priority.

The Pres says there's there's not even a smidgeon of corruption which is quite fascinating.If he wasn't a party to it, which you are absolutely convinced he was not, how in the world would he know that? I will give him credit for one thing, he has done EVERYTHING in his presidential power to convince the American people, it is a "phony scandal". My response to that is, with the 5th amendment pleas and the continued lying, I wouldn't be quite as smug as you, quite clearly, are.

If he did something illegal I hope it's revealed . I'm just amazed at how your hyperpartisan imagination works.

[TheBlueVue 177]

http://talkingpoints...ce-at-tax-panel

"Lois, a few months ago there were some concerns about the IRS's review of 501©(4) organizations, of applications from tea party organizations," Celia Roady, a veteran tax lawyer, asked Lois Lerner, head of the IRS' tax-exempt organizations division, a few minutes after Lerner finished giving prepared remarks. "I was just wondering if you could provide an update."

The name of the panel was "News From The IRS And Treasury." But few, if any, of those present could have anticipated the kind of news Lerner would make with her response to Roady's question.

Lerner began by describing the increase in 501©(4) applications the IRS received between 2010 and 2012. IRS employees in Cincinnati, Lerner said, had reacted by centralizing the applications for efficiency and consistency, something the IRS did "whenever we see an uptick in a new kind of application or something we haven't seen before." But in this case, Lerner said, the centralization had not been carried out properly.

"Instead of referring to the cases as advocacy cases, they actually used case names on this list," Lerner said, according to a transcript of the meeting. "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."

"

Seems you three clowns need to just look at the record. Even Lerner admits it "was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate -- that's not how we go about selecting cases for further review."

http://www.factcheck...ongress-public/

• 
  
  • Lerner told a House committee in May 2012 that the IRS is justified in requesting information from conservative groups about their donors and policy interests in certain cases. That's true, but she failed to disclose that nearly a year earlier she learned that IRS staffers in Ohio were making what she deemed "unnecessary" requests for such information in dozens of instances.
    
  • Lerner blamed a heavy workload for the problem, telling reporters that the applications for 501©(4) nonprofit status had "more than doubled," from 1,500 in 2010 to over 3,400 in 2012. That's true, but use of the "inappropriate criteria" began in March 2010 and 501©(4) applications declined (When this was actually going on...) in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2010, according to the inspector general's report.
    

I dont know which one of you three is Larry, Moe, or Curly but i do know you are all up for stooge awards on this topic.

I don't disagree that it was inappropriate, insensitive and incorrect-- but worse than Watergate? SMH. You win the crazy award.

Once again Tex, love you man, but this investigations is nowhere near halftime yet. Watergate has been over for 40 years.

This one is just getting going good. If the Republicans take control of the Senate, watchout, there may be hell to pay with a looming Special Prosecutor.

Make it the #1 priority.

The Pres says there's there's not even a smidgeon of corruption which is quite fascinating.If he wasn't a party to it, which you are absolutely convinced he was not, how in the world would he know that? I will give him credit for one thing, he has done EVERYTHING in his presidential power to convince the American people, it is a "phony scandal". My response to that is, with the 5th amendment pleas and the continued lying, I wouldn't be quite as smug as you, quite clearly, are.

If he did something illegal I hope it's revealed . I'm just amazed at how your hyperpartisan imagination works.

I didn't imagine the 5th amendment pleas or the lying that was found out after the fact. I didn't imagine that ONLY the 7 or 8 people involved with this investigation had computer crashes out of 90,000 IRS employees. I am amazed how easily lead you are by such fantastical spinning.

[Kassc22 0]

Good summary of what many of us have been saying in this thread. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/08/29/irs-obamacare-missing-emails-epa-transparency-congressional-investigation-column/14743175/

'Fake' IRS scandal spawns real coverup: Column

Lost email, hard-drive crashes, recycled computers, destroyed Blackberry no coincidence.

President Obama regularly claims that he oversees the most honest and transparent administration in history. But when it comes to Congressional investigators looking into the IRS scandal and other issues, it is funny how often the administration hits the delete button.

The conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch revealed this week that IRS Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel Thomas Kane admitted that disgraced former official Lois Lerner's government-issued Blackberry was "wiped clean" and "removed as scrap for disposal" in June 2012. This took place after Congress had opened an investigation into Lerner's role in using the IRS to target conservative nonprofit groups.

For a scandal that is frequently derided as "fake," it is amazing how often real evidence disappears. The disappearing act is so frequent, it is reasonable to wonder whether it is really a systematic attempt to destroy evidence of abuse of power.

Explanations regarding Lerner's thousands of missing emails have always been hard to swallow. The initial story was that the records were accidentally lost when Lerner's desktop computer crashed. But given the nature of networked and cloud computing, as well as government requirements for redundant email backup systems, this account never made sense.

It was also curious that the emails were only lost in the specific timeframe of the investigation, and that Lerner's hard drive had hastily been destroyed. When more than a dozen other IRS officials whose emails were being sought suffered similar computer failures and hard drive recycling, and backup tapes were either missing, written-over or deleted.

This inadvertent, accidental destruction of evidence is so thorough that the House Armed Services Committee asked the Defense Department to scour the files of the NSA in hopes that maybe the emails would turn up there. Last month Federal Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ordered IRS officials to explain under oath what had been done to find the emails and to make clear why they were missing.

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen told Congress he had "moved heaven and Earth" trying to find the lost Lerner emails. But now comes word that the missing records may in fact exist, deep in a secretive government database established for continuity of operations in case of an attack or other disaster. However, a Justice Department attorney looking into the matter said that the files are "too hard" to retrieve, as though agents would be sorting through an endless "Raiders of the Lost Ark" -style warehouse.

Though this latest revelation is now disputed, it is hard to credit official explanations when problems at the IRS are hardly isolated. Other agencies under investigation are suffering similar technical difficulties. The Environmental Protection Agency claimed that emails being sought by Congressional investigators went missing due to a computer crash affecting the very employee under investigation. And administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Marilyn Tavenner told Congress that she regularly zapped emails to keep her inbox tidy, but only after forwarding copies to subordinates for filing. This was before a message turned up from Tavenner on handling Obamacare problems in which recipients were instructed, "please delete this email."

To believe that the IRS scandal is the creation of President Obama's political opponents you have to believe an amazing series of events is just coincidence. That takes a more partisan cast of mind than to wonder whether this might be circumstantial evidence of a desperate effort to obstruct justice.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Kassc22.....Glad to see some in the media beginning to get it.

[AUFAN78 3,911]

http://talkingpoints...ce-at-tax-panel

"Lois, a few months ago there were some concerns about the IRS's review of 501©(4) organizations, of applications from tea party organizations," Celia Roady, a veteran tax lawyer, asked Lois Lerner, head of the IRS' tax-exempt organizations division, a few minutes after Lerner finished giving prepared remarks. "I was just wondering if you could provide an update."

The name of the panel was "News From The IRS And Treasury." But few, if any, of those present could have anticipated the kind of news Lerner would make with her response to Roady's question.

Lerner began by describing the increase in 501©(4) applications the IRS received between 2010 and 2012. IRS employees in Cincinnati, Lerner said, had reacted by centralizing the applications for efficiency and consistency, something the IRS did "whenever we see an uptick in a new kind of application or something we haven't seen before." But in this case, Lerner said, the centralization had not been carried out properly.

"Instead of referring to the cases as advocacy cases, they actually used case names on this list," Lerner said, according to a transcript of the meeting. "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."

"

Seems you three clowns need to just look at the record. Even Lerner admits it "was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate -- that's not how we go about selecting cases for further review."

http://www.factcheck...ongress-public/

• 
  
  • Lerner told a House committee in May 2012 that the IRS is justified in requesting information from conservative groups about their donors and policy interests in certain cases. That's true, but she failed to disclose that nearly a year earlier she learned that IRS staffers in Ohio were making what she deemed "unnecessary" requests for such information in dozens of instances.
    
  • Lerner blamed a heavy workload for the problem, telling reporters that the applications for 501©(4) nonprofit status had "more than doubled," from 1,500 in 2010 to over 3,400 in 2012. That's true, but use of the "inappropriate criteria" began in March 2010 and 501©(4) applications declined (When this was actually going on...) in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2010, according to the inspector general's report.
    

I dont know which one of you three is Larry, Moe, or Curly but i do know you are all up for stooge awards on this topic.

I don't disagree that it was inappropriate, insensitive and incorrect-- but worse than Watergate? SMH. You win the crazy award.

Hello Moe.

[DKW 86 7,426]

Hello Moe.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

http://talkingpoints...ce-at-tax-panel

"Lois, a few months ago there were some concerns about the IRS's review of 501©(4) organizations, of applications from tea party organizations," Celia Roady, a veteran tax lawyer, asked Lois Lerner, head of the IRS' tax-exempt organizations division, a few minutes after Lerner finished giving prepared remarks. "I was just wondering if you could provide an update."

The name of the panel was "News From The IRS And Treasury." But few, if any, of those present could have anticipated the kind of news Lerner would make with her response to Roady's question.

Lerner began by describing the increase in 501©(4) applications the IRS received between 2010 and 2012. IRS employees in Cincinnati, Lerner said, had reacted by centralizing the applications for efficiency and consistency, something the IRS did "whenever we see an uptick in a new kind of application or something we haven't seen before." But in this case, Lerner said, the centralization had not been carried out properly.

"Instead of referring to the cases as advocacy cases, they actually used case names on this list," Lerner said, according to a transcript of the meeting. "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."

"

Seems you three clowns need to just look at the record. Even Lerner admits it "was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate -- that's not how we go about selecting cases for further review."

http://www.factcheck...ongress-public/

• 
  
  • Lerner told a House committee in May 2012 that the IRS is justified in requesting information from conservative groups about their donors and policy interests in certain cases. That's true, but she failed to disclose that nearly a year earlier she learned that IRS staffers in Ohio were making what she deemed "unnecessary" requests for such information in dozens of instances.
    
  • Lerner blamed a heavy workload for the problem, telling reporters that the applications for 501©(4) nonprofit status had "more than doubled," from 1,500 in 2010 to over 3,400 in 2012. That's true, but use of the "inappropriate criteria" began in March 2010 and 501©(4) applications declined (When this was actually going on...) in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2010, according to the inspector general's report.
    

I dont know which one of you three is Larry, Moe, or Curly but i do know you are all up for stooge awards on this topic.

I don't disagree that it was inappropriate, insensitive and incorrect-- but worse than Watergate? SMH. You win the crazy award.

Hello Moe. ;D/>

You're just upset you came in 4th for the crazy award.

[AUFAN78 3,911]

http://talkingpoints...ce-at-tax-panel

"Lois, a few months ago there were some concerns about the IRS's review of 501©(4) organizations, of applications from tea party organizations," Celia Roady, a veteran tax lawyer, asked Lois Lerner, head of the IRS' tax-exempt organizations division, a few minutes after Lerner finished giving prepared remarks. "I was just wondering if you could provide an update."

The name of the panel was "News From The IRS And Treasury." But few, if any, of those present could have anticipated the kind of news Lerner would make with her response to Roady's question.

Lerner began by describing the increase in 501©(4) applications the IRS received between 2010 and 2012. IRS employees in Cincinnati, Lerner said, had reacted by centralizing the applications for efficiency and consistency, something the IRS did "whenever we see an uptick in a new kind of application or something we haven't seen before." But in this case, Lerner said, the centralization had not been carried out properly.

"Instead of referring to the cases as advocacy cases, they actually used case names on this list," Lerner said, according to a transcript of the meeting. "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."

"

Seems you three clowns need to just look at the record. Even Lerner admits it "was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate -- that's not how we go about selecting cases for further review."

http://www.factcheck...ongress-public/

• 
  
  • Lerner told a House committee in May 2012 that the IRS is justified in requesting information from conservative groups about their donors and policy interests in certain cases. That's true, but she failed to disclose that nearly a year earlier she learned that IRS staffers in Ohio were making what she deemed "unnecessary" requests for such information in dozens of instances.
    
  • Lerner blamed a heavy workload for the problem, telling reporters that the applications for 501©(4) nonprofit status had "more than doubled," from 1,500 in 2010 to over 3,400 in 2012. That's true, but use of the "inappropriate criteria" began in March 2010 and 501©(4) applications declined (When this was actually going on...) in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2010, according to the inspector general's report.
    

I dont know which one of you three is Larry, Moe, or Curly but i do know you are all up for stooge awards on this topic.

I don't disagree that it was inappropriate, insensitive and incorrect-- but worse than Watergate? SMH. You win the crazy award.

Hello Moe. ;D/>

You're just upset you came in 4th for the crazy award.

Yeah maybe. Oh well, congratulations on your victory nonetheless. You earned it!

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

AUfan78....great response!!!!