IRS inappropriately targets Tea Party, White House blames Bush

[PLATO]

I don't see how any of that is in any way related to the President.

Others do. No harm in finding out.

The IRS was done under the watch of a Bush appointee. Unless you think that Obama went under him to directly micromanage (secretly), the notion is ridiculous.

Investigations don't have to be focused on the President, do they?

Benghazi also has nothing to do with Obama, and no motivation on his part. I am not saying no motivation for the spin, I am saying no motivation for doing anything wrong (like arranging for the murder of the ambassador/etc).

I don't think Obama had anything to do with the somewhat wild ideas you put out, but I do think that the Saturday morning meeting and the Sunday TV appearences needs to have some clarity.

AP phone records I don't know enough about to comment.

Me either really...I think we all need to know more about this.

But this is the issue. I have no reason to think, based on two of the cases you mentioned that I know about, that the President has any need of being cleared.

Others disagree. There should be no reason for the President to run from an investigation if he did nothing wrong.

It would be like me saying that Paul Ryan needed investigated about the Boston Marathon bombing.

No...no its not. Dumb statement Jon.

You need to have some reason to believe that wrong doing occurred and some specific wrong doing that you think occurred. I am not saying that what the IRS did wasn't wrong (although I could understand some people saying that), I am saying that there is no reason to believe that Obama did anything wrong or that it had anything to do with him.

Once again...others disagree. That is why we have investigations...so we can all be on the same page.

[PLATO]

Eh, I don't think the three issues are related. Benghazi is entirely meaningless, it's just PR not done very well. The AP phone records is business as usual - Bush would've done the same thing and FN would've been highly supportive. I don't like it, but unless Cory Doctorow is elected to the Senate alongside Al Franken I don't see that changing (and he's a Brit, so it's not happening, but who 20 years ago could've imagined Senator Al Franken?).

The IRS targeting is a bit more interesting of a question. I doubt it will trace up to the administration; even if it does originate up there I doubt they're dumb enough to leave tracks like that (but, Nixon...) Realistically though it probably originated from some midlevel guys doing 'due diligence'. The more interesting question, though, is whether a coverup occurred; that is much more likely to trace back to the administration, and would be much more of a scandal IMO.

I'd have to see a bit more evidence of actual wrongdoing, though; I haven't seen a lot that's clearly wrong (as opposed to just being thorough). Most of what I've seen is sort of comparable to Derrick Rose complaining about not getting foul calls; yeah, there's probably a complaint here, but it's not at the level of 'wrongdoing', just a minor systemic bias that ought to be corrected. (Note, I haven't really had time to look at all of the issues, and it's sort of a lot of work given the FN vs MSNBC issues that neither side gives a good, neutral picture.)

Your statement is like I am saying we should just convict the President outright. That is not at all what I am saying. I am saying, let's get to the bottom of these things and if there is nothing there then MOVE ON. As it is, both sides spin machines are consuming everything. Instead of flinging dubious facts from both sides, lets just get the facts. Why is that such a problem?

[snoopy369]

Jon, the Bush appointee bit is mostly irrelevant. If Obama kept him on, then he's responsible for his actions, in some fashion. Even if this were an Obama appointee, though, that wouldn't be itself a problem; the question is whether the Administration actively supported or requested these investigations, or covered up their existence. Any of those things would be really really bad - I'd say impeachable, if it were clear cut and the actions taken were clearly intended to alter the status of TP groups (or any political group).

One side note here: I think that Republicans complaining about this, while not wrong per se, need to take a long, hard look at one of the Republican party's own issues here: Planned Parenthood. That is a nonprofit organization with at least some political advocacy elements that has suffered an awful lot of flack along not dissimilar lines. Even the 'federal funding' stuff is relevant here, because the things they received funding for were acceptable activities to both parties (and to the funding mandate). I totally agree that it's inappropriate for the IRS or any federal agency to come down on Tea Party organizations harder than on others, but the same applies for liberal advocacy, even if those groups are advocating something you find evil. America's concept of liberty and freedom of expression includes groups like that, and you have to accept it or not complain when the pendulum comes back the other way.

[Jon Miller]

No...no its not. Dumb statement Jon.

Once again...others disagree. That is why we have investigations...so we can all be on the same page.

The issue with both the IRS and Benghazi, at least as far as high office goes, seems to be entirely political.

You could find entirely political people on the left side who would say the same about Bush/etc. Far enough left and it could be any right-wing politician you care to name.

Due to the actions of the right the last 5 years, I don't trust them to be unbiased enough to be reasonable about Obama at all.

So no, I don't think it is possible for Slowwhand or others like him to be on the same page as me. It has nothing to do with facts, logic, or reason.

JM

[Jon Miller]

An 'independent' investigation is a serious deal. It isn't something you do just because you might turn up dirt. You need sufficient cause.

Otherwise it is the same thing as the IRS singling out Tea Party to investigate.

At least right now there is no suggestion of any wrong doing by Obama/etc about the IRS. I agree that if he did give orders (direct or indirect), that it would be a serious offense (and impeachable).

I just don't see any evidence to accuse him on. Sure, carry out the investigation of IRS misconduct. Which has already been happening.

PLATO talked about clearing the president which means the president would be included in the investigation. Which he shouldn't, unless you are wanting to do the same thing to him as the IRS did to Tea Party groups.

JM

[PLATO]

One side note here: I think that Republicans complaining about this, while not wrong per se, need to take a long, hard look at one of the Republican party's own issues here: Planned Parenthood. That is a nonprofit organization with at least some political advocacy elements that has suffered an awful lot of flack along not dissimilar lines. Even the 'federal funding' stuff is relevant here, because the things they received funding for were acceptable activities to both parties (and to the funding mandate). I totally agree that it's inappropriate for the IRS or any federal agency to come down on Tea Party organizations harder than on others, but the same applies for liberal advocacy, even if those groups are advocating something you find evil. America's concept of liberty and freedom of expression includes groups like that, and you have to accept it or not complain when the pendulum comes back the other way.

Not to butt in on your comment to Jon, but I must say I totally agree with this!!

[snoopy369]

Your statement is like I am saying we should just convict the President outright. That is not at all what I am saying. I am saying, let's get to the bottom of these things and if there is nothing there then MOVE ON. As it is, both sides spin machines are consuming everything. Instead of flinging dubious facts from both sides, lets just get the facts. Why is that such a problem?

I'm saying I don't think bringing up these three things at once is really productive; stating it that way suggests that they're at all similar, or relevant, or trying to dirty the reputation of the President to affect the outcome of one. I think one of them is a nonissue, one is a nonpartisan issue that is more a matter of how we feel as a nation about civil liberties, and one is a matter of potential administration misconduct.

It's sort of like in a criminal trial, the prosecutor isn't allowed to bring up other 'alleged' crimes unrelated to the one at hand just to suggest the accused has a dirty reputation. Each of the issues should stand on its own and be treated as its own. I don't think any combination is relevant nor does it shine badly on the administration that these three exist (any more so than 9/11 Truthers should have been considered or even included in a statement about Bush administration misconduct).

The IRS issue is a serious issue and may suggest something that I'd rather not see in any administration, though. That I totally agree with (if it turns out to be as bad as it could be).

[snoopy369]

I am curious how people on Apolyton in 1974 would have felt during those discussions. Nixon after all was starting to piss off Republicans as well as Democrats, so that might have made things a bit more interesting...

[Jon Miller]

There is a significant difference between investigating the office of the president and investigating some part of executive branch.

We have due cause to investigate the IRS (part of the executive branch). In fact, we must. And if we get any evidence of higher up wrong doing, then I agree, we must investigate the administration.

But we do not have any evidence of higher up wrong doing.

Yet people are jumping to calling for an investigation of the office of the president (not even some appointee of his/etc, but the president himself).

This is without due cause. Without reason, it is the same fundamental issue as what was wrong about the IRS actions in the first place.

It is shameful.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Honestly, if there was any evidence or the suggestion of evidence, I would be all in favor of a serious (independent, whole 9 yards) probe of the administration.

Not only that, but it would make me against them on a general level. I don't think much of politicians.

But right now it is just baseless bias.

JM

[The Mad Monk]

IRS officials in Washington were involved in targeting of conservative groups


By Juliet Eilperin and Zachary A. Goldfarb, Published: May 13 E-mail the writers

Internal Revenue Service officials in Washington and at least two other offices were involved with investigating conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, making clear that the effort reached well beyond the branch in Cincinnati that was initially blamed, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.

IRS officials at the agency’s Washington headquarters sent queries to conservative groups asking about their donors and other aspects of their operations, while officials in the El Monte and Laguna Niguel offices in California sent similar questionnaires to tea-party-affiliated groups, the documents show.

IRS employees in Cincinnati told conservatives seeking the status of “social welfare” groups that a task force in Washington was overseeing their applications, according to interviews with the activists.

Lois G. Lerner, who oversees tax-exempt groups for the IRS, told reporters Friday that the “absolutely inappropriate” actions were undertaken by “front-line people” working in Cincinnati to target groups with “tea party,” “patriot” or “9/12” in their names.

In one instance, however, Ron Bell, an IRS employee, informed a lawyer representing a conservative group focused on voter fraud that the application was under review in Washington. On several other occasions, IRS officials in Washington and California sent conservative groups detailed questionnaires about their voter outreach and other activities, according to the documents.

“For the IRS to say it was some low-level group in Cincinnati is simply false,” said Cleta Mitchell, a partner in the law firm Foley & Lardner who sought to communicate with IRS headquarters about the delay in granting tax-exempt status to True the Vote.

Moreover, details of the IRS’s efforts to target conservative groups reached the highest levels of the agency in May 2012, far earlier than has been disclosed, according to Republican congressional aides briefed by the IRS and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration *(TIGTA) on the details of their reviews.

Then-Commissioner Douglas Shulman, a George W. Bush appointee who stepped down in November, received a briefing from the TIGTA about what was happening in the Cincinnati office in May 2012, the aides said. His deputy and the agency’s current acting commissioner, Steven T. Miller, also learned about the matter that month, the aides said.

The officials did not share details with Republican lawmakers who had been demanding to know whether the IRS was targeting conservative groups, Republicans said.

“I wrote to the IRS three times last year after hearing concerns that conservative groups were being targeted,” Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement Monday. “In response to the first letter I sent with some of my colleagues, Steven Miller, the current Acting IRS Commissioner, responded that these groups weren’t being targeted.”

“Knowing what we know now,” he added, “the IRS was at best being far from forth coming, or at worst, being deliberately dishonest with Congress.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-denounces-reported-irs-targeting-of-conservative-groups/2013/05/13/a0185644-bbdf-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html?wpisrc=al_excl

IRS released confidential info on conservative groups to ProPublica

By Josh Hicks, Published: May 14, 2013 at 6:00 amE-mail the writer

eye-opener-logo6ProPublica on Monday reported that the same IRS division that targeted conservative groups for special scrutiny during the 2012 election cycle provided the investigative-reporting organization with confidential applications for tax-exempt status.

That revelation contradicts previous statements from the agency and may represent a violation of federal guidelines. Lois G. Lerner, who heads the IRS sector that reviews tax-exemption applications, told a congressional oversight committee in April 2012 that IRS code prohibited the agency from providing information about groups that had not yet been approved.

Reps. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) had asked Lerner in March 2012 to provide a list of all organizations that the IRS had subjected to special scrutiny.
(Daniel Acker/Bloomberg)

(Daniel Acker/Bloomberg)

Lerner replied that she could not legally reveal information about groups that were not approved and that identifying targeted applicants that were already approved would require additional work, specifically a “manual review of each file.” She did not identify any of the organizations.

Below is an excerpt of Lerner’s response:

“Section 6104(a) of the Code permits public disclosure of an application for recognition of tax exempt status and supporting materials only after the organization has been recognized as exempt. Consequently, we cannot provide a list of organizations that have received [additional scrutiny] from the IRS, until those applications have been approved.”

ProPublica reported that the Lerner’s division released “nine pending confidential applications of conservatives groups” in response to a request from the investigative-reporting organization for the applications of 67 nonprofits in November 2012.

Lerner apologized on Friday for actions her sector took to single out conservative groups for special scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status.

Documents from an inspector general’s report due for release this week show that the IRS also targeted groups with names containing the phrases “tea party” or “patriot,” in addition to 9/12 Project — founded by conservative political commentator Glenn Beck — and organizations that criticized the government or aimed to educate people about the Constitution.

IRS officials in Washington and at least two other offices were involved with investigating the groups, making clear that the effort reached well beyond the branch in Cincinnati that was initially blamed, according to a report in Tuesday’s Washington Post.

IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman testified on the targeting issue before a House Ways and Means subcommittee in March 2012, adamantly denying that the IRS singled out groups for special scrutiny. “There’s absolutely no targeting,” he said. “This is the kind of back and forth that happens to people [who apply for tax-exempt status.]”

Shulman’s testimony came nearly 10 months after Lerner instructed her division to change its search criteria.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/05/14/irs-released-confidential-info-on-conservative-groups-to-propublica/

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I just love the idea that bureaucrats won't impose red tape and needless paperwork unless they've received a directive from above as part of some mass conspiracy to annoy the political opposition.

I just love the fact that advocates for increased governement routinely deny the adverse effects of red tape, beauracratic overreach, and regulations (particularly fuzzy ones allowing for wide interpretation by low level flunky types with agendas).

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

It is hard to imagine that with Benghazi, The AP phone records, and the IRS "targeting" that something isn't amiss. I know every conservative wants to scream "Obama is corrupt!" and every liberal wants to scream "GOP Whining!", but it seems to me that there is mounting evidence that something isn't quite right with this administration.

Everyone, regardless of political leanings, should welcome an investigation to either uncover corruption or clear the President.

IMO, there was no directed attempt by the WH to make these things happen. Now thats not to say that the atmosphere hasn't become so poisoned that individuals feel the need to take it to the "enemy". Thanks in large part to tone set by the President.

"Ladies and gentlemen, we have a president in the White House who referred to Americans who disagree with him as 'our enemies.' Think about that. He actually used that word. When Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush used the word 'enemy,' they reserved it for global terrorists and foreign dictators -- enemies of the United States. Enemies of freedom. Enemies of our country. Today, sadly, we have president who uses the word 'enemy' for fellow Americans -- fellow citizens. He uses it for people who disagree with his agenda of bigger government -- people speaking out for a smaller, more accountable government that respects freedom and allows small businesses to create jobs. Mr. President, there's a word for people who have the audacity to speak up in defense of freedom, the Constitution, and the values of limited government that made our country great. We don't call them 'enemies.' We call them 'patriots.'"

[DinoDoc]

Those were some busy low level employees weren't they TMM.

[giblets]

I just love the fact that advocates for increased governement routinely deny the adverse effects of red tape, beauracratic overreach, and regulations.

Could be a necessary evil in some cases. I don't know why anyone would claim government regulations or programs wouldn't have any drawbacks.