IRS Targeting of Conservative Groups for Scrutiny

[LA Ute]

I am not a Tea Party guy, but I still think this is reprehensible. I hope I would be just as concerned about this if the IRS were scrutinizing liberal groups. Even the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/playing-politics-with-tax-records/2013/05/10/e36dfe5a-b9b7-11e2-aa9e-a02b765ff0ea_story.html), in an unsigned editorial, came out pretty strongly against the IRS tactics:


A BEDROCK principle of U.S. democracy is that the coercive powers of government are never used for partisan purpose. The law is blind to political viewpoint, and so are its enforcers, most especially the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service. Any violation of this principle threatens the trust and the voluntary cooperation of citizens upon which this democracy depends.

So it was appalling to learn Friday that the IRS had improperly targeted conservative groups for scrutiny (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/irs-admits-targeting-conservatives-for-tax-scrutiny-in-2012-election/2013/05/10/3b6a0ada-b987-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_story.html). It was almost as disturbing that President Obama and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew have not personally apologized to the American people and promised a full investigation.

“Mistakes were made,” the agency said in a statement. IRS official Lois Lerner explained that staffers used a “shortcut” to sort through a large number of applications from groups seeking tax-exempt status, highlighting organizations with “tea party” or “patriot” in their names. The IRS insisted emphatically that partisanship had nothing to do with it. However, it seems that groups with “progressive” in their titles did not receive the same scrutiny.

If it was not partisanship, was it incompetence? Stupidity, on a breathtaking scale? At this point, the IRS has lost any standing to determine and report on what exactly happened. Certainly Congress will investigate, as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) promised. Mr. Obama also should guarantee an unimpeachably independent inquiry....

Read the whole thing. This needs to be stamped out if we are going to remain different from banana republics.

[LA Ute]

More from the Associated Press:

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268798/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=213eUSft

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Senior Internal Revenue Service officials knew agents were targeting tea party groups as early as 2011, according to a draft of an inspector general's report obtained by The Associated Press that seemingly contradicts public statements by the IRS commissioner...."

[GarthUte]

More from the Associated Press:

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268798/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=213eUSft

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Senior Internal Revenue Service officials knew agents were targeting tea party groups as early as 2011, according to a draft of an inspector general's report obtained by The Associated Press that seemingly contradicts public statements by the IRS commissioner...."

It seems that Lois Lerner wasn't exactly truthful when she said that higher level employees didn't know anything about it.

[Scratch]

The fact that this story and the Benghazi revelations aren't absolutely huge stories that the public is extremely concerned about is just further evidence that the Republican Party, as a national entity, is essentially dead.

[LA Ute]

The fact that this story and the Benghazi revelations aren't absolutely huge stories that the public is extremely concerned about is just further evidence that the Republican Party, as a national entity, is essentially dead.

Time to form another party: The New Whigs.

[LA Ute]

Ross Douthat makes some points about this story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/opinion/sunday/douthat-the-taxman-vs-the-tea-party.html?ref=rossdouthat

"As a taxpayer and a conservative who hopes to remain on good terms with the Internal Revenue Service for many April 15ths to come, I don’t want to speculate too freely about the motives of the “low level” I.R.S. employees who decided to single out Tea Party groups for an inappropriate level of attention during the heat of the 2012 campaign.

"But I’m willing to guess this much: Even though an American Civil Liberties Union official described their excessive interest in right-wing groups as “about as constitutionally troubling as it gets,” the bureaucrats in question probably thought they were just doing their patriotic duty, and giving dangerous extremists the treatment they deserved...."

[jrj84105]

So why is the IRS using keyword searches to identify possible tax fraud when my credit card company, using data mining tools, calls me because purchasing home goods at Macy's is outside my usual spending patterns. The GOP will never gain any traction on exposing Dems/gov incompetence until they start putting forward a realistic vision of a functional government. (Cue privatizing the IRS).

[UteBeliever aka Port]

The fact that this story and the Benghazi revelations aren't absolutely huge stories that the public is extremely concerned about is just further evidence that the Republican Party, as a national entity, is essentially dead.


Time to form another party: The New Whigs.

No new party, regardless of name, will gain any traction. Even if the GOP just turned out the lights and closed the doors and a party stepped in to fill the void. The liberals have far too much control of the media.

The death of the GOP is not the reason that this IRS and the Benghazi story are not gaining huge attention in the media. No, it's the fact that the media is mostly liberal parrots, not journalists. They have become the propoganda machine for liberal ("Progressive") agendas and filter out anything that could damage those ideaologies they themselves hold true.

A new conservative political party wouldn't change anything. They would be marginalized by the media just the same.

[GarthUte]

No new party, regardless of name, will gain any traction. Even if the GOP just turned out the lights and closed the doors and a party stepped in to fill the void. The liberals have far too much control of the media.

The death of the GOP is not the reason that this IRS and the Benghazi story are not gaining huge attention in the media. No, it's the fact that the media is mostly liberal parrots, not journalists. They have become the propoganda machine for liberal ("Progressive") agendas and filter out anything that could damage those ideaologies they themselves hold true.

A new conservative political party wouldn't change anything. They would be marginalized by the media just the same.

Spot on, Port.

[DU Ute]

If you don't want extra scrutiny from the IRS, you should probably come up with a name other than Tea Party.

[GarthUte]

If you don't want extra scrutiny from the IRS, you should probably come up with a name other than Tea Party.

So, you condone that the IRS targets those who Obama considers his political enemies?

How about pro-Israel (http://www.jewishpress.com/news/irs-punished-conservative-non-profits-perhaps-also-pro-israel-groups/2013/05/11/) groups? Are you okay with that too?

[Diehard Ute]

So, you condone that the IRS targets those who Obama considers his political enemies?

How about pro-Israel (http://www.jewishpress.com/news/irs-punished-conservative-non-profits-perhaps-also-pro-israel-groups/2013/05/11/) groups? Are you okay with that too?

I can't speak for him, but I'm guessing he was noting the historical nature of the name "Tea Party" in relation to taxes

[Utah]

I can't speak for him, but I'm guessing he was noting the historical nature of the name "Tea Party" in relation to taxes

What, that a party believes taxes are too high, and so they go about electing officials the LEGAL way to try to change the system?

That ideology allows the government to unfairly target them and persecute them?

Um...ok...

So, when a republican takes office, it's ok for him to persecute people under the "liberal" agenda because they want to LEGALLY change the system?

Get real. This country is going down the tubes and people who think this is ok are the problem (and they are on BOTH sides, see PATRIOT ACT).

[LA Ute]

So, you condone that the IRS targets those who Obama considers his political enemies?

How about pro-Israel (http://www.jewishpress.com/news/irs-punished-conservative-non-profits-perhaps-also-pro-israel-groups/2013/05/11/) groups? Are you okay with that too?

DU Ute is a communist. Once you understand this about him everything else makes sense.

[Rocker Ute]

If you don't want extra scrutiny from the IRS, you should probably come up with a name other than Tea Party.

Actually now is the time to include 'Tea Party' in your name to avoid scrutiny by the IRS. They aren't going to touch you with a 10 foot pole now.

[LA Ute]

"Whistleblower Hicks, a Democrat, voted for Obama and guess who else? (http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/05/12/whistleblower-hicks-a-democrat-voted-for-obama-and-guess-who-else-68694)"I guess some people assumed he was a Fox News plant.

[LA Ute]

ABC News has done a timeline:

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Appendix%20VI%20and%20Appendix%20VII.PDF

[DanielLaRusso]

What, that a party believes taxes are too high, and so they go about electing officials the LEGAL way to try to change the system?

That ideology allows the government to unfairly target them and persecute them?

Um...ok...

So, when a republican takes office, it's ok for him to persecute people under the "liberal" agenda because they want to LEGALLY change the system?

Get real. This country is going down the tubes and people who think this is ok are the problem (and they are on BOTH sides, see PATRIOT ACT).

I also can't speak for DU, but I'm pretty sure he was deadpanning

[LA Ute]

I also can't speak for DU, but I'm pretty sure he was deadpanning

Typical commie tactic.

[U-Ute]

Not the first time (http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/when_the_irs_targeted_liberals/singleton/) the IRS has been used for political means.

And my guess is it won't be the last time either.

U-Ute

[GarthUte]

http://i924.photobucket.com/albums/ad81/rdbrewer/Obama-Nixon.jpg

[LA Ute]

Report: IRS Deliberately Chose Not to Fess Up to Scandal Before Election (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hZqROJZTf3c

[GarthUte]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vCjssK-i4Mg#!

This is the kind of questioning/lecturing that needs to incessantly happen until the IRS folks come clean.

[LA Ute]

This is the kind of questioning/lecturing that needs to incessantly happen until the IRS folks come clean.

That was pretty good. So is Peggy Noonan today:

This Is No Ordinary Scandal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323582904578487460479247792.html)


We are in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate. The reputation of the Obama White House has, among conservatives, gone from sketchy to sinister, and, among liberals, from unsatisfying to dangerous. No one likes what they're seeing. The Justice Department assault on the Associated Press and the ugly politicization of the Internal Revenue Service have left the administration's credibility deeply, probably irretrievably damaged. They don't look jerky now, they look dirty. The patina of high-mindedness the president enjoyed is gone.

Something big has shifted. The standing of the administration has changed....

And Kim Strassel:

Strassel: The IRS Scandal Started at the Top (http://online.wsj.com/article/potomac_watch.html)


The bureaucrats at the Internal Revenue Service did exactly what the president said was the right and honorable thing to do....Mr. VanderSloot is the Obama target who in 2011 made a sizable donation to a group supporting Mitt Romney (http://topics.wsj.com/person/R/Mitt-Romney/6591). In April 2012, an Obama campaign website named and slurred eight Romney donors. It tarred Mr. VanderSloot as a "wealthy individual" with a "less-than-reputable record." Other donors were described as having been "on the wrong side of the law."

This was the Obama version of the phone call—put out to every government investigator (and liberal activist) in the land.

Twelve days later, a man working for a political opposition-research firm called an Idaho courthouse for Mr. VanderSloot's divorce records. In June, the IRS informed Mr. VanderSloot and his wife of an audit of two years of their taxes. In July, the Department of Labor informed him of an audit of the guest workers on his Idaho cattle ranch. In September, the IRS informed him of a second audit, of one of his businesses. Mr. VanderSloot, who had never been audited before, was subject to three in the four months after Mr. Obama teed him up for such scrutiny.

The last of these audits was only concluded in recent weeks. Not one resulted in a fine or penalty. But Mr. VanderSloot has been waiting more than 20 months for a sizable refund and estimates his legal bills are $80,000. That figure doesn't account for what the president's vilification has done to his business and reputation.

[GarthUte]

Trey Gowdy takes Douglas Shulman to task:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIpHuAh0sOI

[Ma'ake]

It looks like it wasn't just conservative groups who were targeted: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/15/1209257/-Liberal-groups-received-same-IRS-letter-that-ignited-Tea-Party-nbsp-outrage#

Maybe Congress should alter the law and make it so groups don't have to appear as not being entirely political in nature in order to get the benefits of anonymous donations and be tax exempt. The IRS shouldn't be in the position of trying to assess whether groups are tax exempt or not.

For that matter, I wish they would approve my application for the Church of the NFL of Bountiful, so we can buy a bunch of bigscreen TVs, tax free. :)

[LA Ute]

It looks like it wasn't just conservative groups who were targeted: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/15/1209257/-Liberal-groups-received-same-IRS-letter-that-ignited-Tea-Party-nbsp-outrage#

I'd feel a little better if that were true, but I'd still be disgusted. An investigation will tell us whether Kos and Co. are right.

[SoCalPat]

That was pretty good. So is Peggy Noonan today:

This Is No Ordinary Scandal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323582904578487460479247792.html)



And Kim Strassel:

Strassel: The IRS Scandal Started at the Top (http://online.wsj.com/article/potomac_watch.html)

Frank VanderSloot was an alleged IRS target? Couldn't happen to a more deserving person.

[GarthUte]

Frank VanderSloot was an alleged IRS target? Couldn't happen to a more deserving person.

So you're okay with the IRS targeting someone for political reasons?

[LA Ute]

Noonan: A Battering Ram Becomes a Stonewall (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323475304578501581991103070.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop)Excerpt:


"I don't know." "I don't remember." "I'm not familiar with that detail." "It's not my precise area." "I'm not familiar with that letter."


These are quotes from the Internal Revenue Service officials who testified this week before the House and Senate. That is the authentic sound of stonewalling, and from the kind of people who run Washington in the modern age—smooth, highly credentialed and unaccountable. They're surrounded by legal and employment protections, they know how to parse a careful response, they know how to blur the essential point of a question in a blizzard of unconnected factoids. They came across as people arrogant enough to target Americans for abuse and harassment and think they'd get away with it.


So what did we learn the past week, and what are the essentials to keep in mind?

[SoCalPat]

So you're okay with the IRS targeting someone for political reasons?

What a pathetic response. We all know if the IRS went after someone like Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid, you'd insist they were dirty tax cheats trying to defraud their own government, part and parcel of what they already do as elected representatives.

For someone like Vandersloot, who has gone after those that disagree with him with impugnity, it's merely a case of reaping what he long ago sowed. Vandersloot is a pig who loves to fling his own political slop (especially at the LGBT community) at others, but cries like a little bitch when he's called out on it and uses the force of his own fortune as a hammer against his enemies. Payback is truly a bitch.

[GarthUte]

What a pathetic response. We all know if the IRS went after someone like Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid, you'd insist they were dirty tax cheats trying to defraud their own government, part and parcel of what they already do as elected representatives.

Talk about a pathetic response. You're full of shit if you really believe this. I hate the politics of leftists, but if the IRS targeted them, I'd be just as pissed about it because I hate tyrannical actions by the government against citizens.


For someone like Vandersloot, who has gone after those that disagree with him with impugnity, it's merely a case of reaping what he long ago sowed. Vandersloot is a pig who loves to fling his own political slop (especially at the LGBT community) at others, but cries like a little bitch when he's called out on it and uses the force of his own fortune as a hammer against his enemies. Payback is truly a bitch.

So, again, you're okay with someone being targeted for political reasons? Because this is why he was targeted. You are exactly what you think I am.

[SoCalPat]

Talk about a pathetic response. You're full of shit if you really believe this. I hate the politics of leftists, but if the IRS targeted them, I'd be just as pissed about it because I hate tyrannical actions by the government against citizens.



So, again, you're okay with someone being targeted for political reasons? Because this is why he was targeted. You are exactly what you think I am.

That's laughable. Your posts in other forums totally contradict that belief. You'll find anything the left does and spin it into justifiable hate.

Your conclusion is equally laughable. There's a massive difference between condoning illegal actions and applauding the fate of those that such actions are directed toward. For example, I don't condone murder but I enjoyed hearing about how Jeffrey Dahmer's life on this planet came to an end.

[GarthUte]

That's laughable. Your posts in other forums totally contradict that belief. You'll find anything the left does and spin it into justifiable hate.

Your conclusion is equally laughable. There's a massive difference between condoning illegal actions and applauding the fate of those that such actions are directed toward. For example, I don't condone murder but I enjoyed hearing about how Jeffrey Dahmer's life on this planet came to an end.

What's laughable is that you think because I'm unapologetic about my conservative politics, that I'm incapable of separating them from the government abusing citizens of any scope. Yes, I hate what the left does, but as I said, I hate government bullying of individual citizens more. But since you've made the accusation, I challenge you to find one post where I celebrated the government punishing liberal citizens. The burden of proof is on you. Either back up your claim or admit that you're full of shit.

As for my conclusion, I'm spot on about you. You are exactly what you think I am. Your posts here are evidence of it.

[LA Ute]

If the population at large loses confidence in the nation's revenue collection system, that is a big deal.

[SoCalPat]

What's laughable is that you think because I'm unapologetic about my conservative politics, that I'm incapable of separating them from the government abusing citizens of any scope. Yes, I hate what the left does, but as I said, I hate government bullying of individual citizens more. But since you've made the accusation, I challenge you to find one post where I celebrated the government punishing liberal citizens. The burden of proof is on you. Either back up your claim or admit that you're full of shit.

As for my conclusion, I'm spot on about you. You are exactly what you think I am. Your posts here are evidence of it.

Spare me your sanctimonious claptrap. You're the one who made the first accusation in all of this and bait-and-switched the conversation in a manner that was ridiculously transparent, all while trying to convey a doe-like attempt at innocence. You're no different than any of the liberal talk show hosts that I'm convinced you despise -- or must I find absolute proof of that as well? In short, you're a hack.

Bad things happen to bad people and I'm honest enough with myself that I can admit that I celebrate them. It's called karmic retribution and I don't know of a person who doesn't believe in it to some degree. That is the only point I cared to make in all of this. You want to defend Vandersloot, be my guest. We can, as you're so won't to say when you're beaten on an argument, agree to disagree on that particular topic. But you're the one who made this about conservative politics and government intrustion, not me. Go point your soapbox in a direction where there are people who actually care.

[GarthUte]

Spare me your sanctimonious claptrap. You're the one who made the first accusation in all of this and bait-and-switched the conversation in a manner that was ridiculously transparent, all while trying to convey a doe-like attempt at innocence. You're no different than any of the liberal talk show hosts that I'm convinced you despise -- or must I find absolute proof of that as well? In short, you're a hack.

Bad things happen to bad people and I'm honest enough with myself that I can admit that I celebrate them. It's called karmic retribution and I don't know of a person who doesn't believe in it to some degree. That is the only point I cared to make in all of this. You want to defend Vandersloot, be my guest. We can, as you're so won't to say when you're beaten on an argument, agree to disagree on that particular topic. But you're the one who made this about conservative politics and government intrustion, not me. Go point your soapbox in a direction where there are people who actually care.

If you think you've won this argument, you're kidding yourself. All I did was ask you if you're okay that some one is targeted by the government for their politics and you went on an arrogant rant about me and my politics.

When it's conservative vs. liberal, I will side with the conservative. But when it's the government vs. the citizen, I will side with the citizen. If you're incapable of understanding that, then it's your problem, not mine.

[Dawminator]

As neither a conservative or a liberal, the thing that disgust me is the fact that there are people out there who make comments like Pats. What a joke. Our country is dead because people don't care what happens as long as its to the other side. Its disgusting Pat. Can't even believe how much all of these scandals infuriate me. Mostly because nobody on the left seems to care (just like people on the right don't care about them when its their guys). We are screwed. I have no faith in our government, our people, and most especially our corrupt press.

Vanderstink may be the worst person in the world, but if the IRS audited him because of his politics then I am on his side. The IRS has NO authority to audit bad people, because they are bad. NONE. The IRS in theory should be non-political. They should treat the law abiding homophob and racist the same as the law abiding philanthropist and clergy. Unless his taxes were messed up the IRS has no right to audit him. NONE. Celebrating an innocent man (and in this case he was innocent) getting "his" is classess, douchey, and the exact reason why our country will fail.

Garth said it best when it is government v. citizen, no matter the citizen, you better believe I am going to be with the citizen 99/100. I don't get why people have all this love and trust for large governments...when their guy is in charge. And Republicans believe in big government, just one of a different variety.

I am also glad that Pat gets to decide who deserves to be wrongly audited. Can't believe how messed up our country is.

[SoCalPat]

If you think you've won this argument, you're kidding yourself. All I did was ask you if you're okay that some one is targeted by the government for their politics and you went on an arrogant rant about me and my politics.

When it's conservative vs. liberal, I will side with the conservative. But when it's the government vs. the citizen, I will side with the citizen. If you're incapable of understanding that, then it's your problem, not mine.

This "argument" was scored SCP KO 1 when you asked a ridiculous question that at best, could only be described as rhetorical, yet you insisted on trying to pass it off as an earnest attempt to get an answer -- an answer I suspect you already knew, but deliberately chose to ignore, or at least refused to give the benefit of the doubt on. Of course I would never say it's fine for a government entity like the IRS to selectively go after people on their political beliefs. (I would like to see your equally passionate defense of the Associated Press elsewhere on this board as well). I don't talk politics a lot, so I can forgive anyone for not knowing exactly where I stand on every issue; I can't for those who deliberately play dumb to try and win an argument. Do you really think I'm a communist? Don't answer that question -- I don't really want to know the answer.

Most people can discern simple subtleties like the one I've been making. Go right ahead and side with the citizen; no one's faulting you for that. I wouldn't expect any different from you or anyone else. But if in your eyes, I support the IRS for what Vandersloot had to endure, then it's OK for me to label you as homophobic and racist because you defend Vandersloot and hammer Obama. What's the difference? Both are knee-jerk reactions that are completely absent of perspective.

[SoCalPat]

As neither a conservative or a liberal, the thing that disgust me is the fact that there are people out there who make comments like Pats. What a joke. Our country is dead because people don't care what happens as long as its to the other side. Its disgusting Pat. Can't even believe how much all of these scandals infuriate me. Mostly because nobody on the left seems to care (just like people on the right don't care about them when its their guys). We are screwed. I have no faith in our government, our people, and most especially our corrupt press.

Vanderstink may be the worst person in the world, but if the IRS audited him because of his politics then I am on his side. The IRS has NO authority to audit bad people, because they are bad. NONE. The IRS in theory should be non-political. They should treat the law abiding homophob and racist the same as the law abiding philanthropist and clergy. Unless his taxes were messed up the IRS has no right to audit him. NONE. Celebrating an innocent man (and in this case he was innocent) getting "his" is classess, douchey, and the exact reason why our country will fail.

Garth said it best when it is government v. citizen, no matter the citizen, you better believe I am going to be with the citizen 99/100. I don't get why people have all this love and trust for large governments...when their guy is in charge. And Republicans believe in big government, just one of a different variety.

I am also glad that Pat gets to decide who deserves to be wrongly audited. Can't believe how messed up our country is.

I'm glad you put me in my place by linking me with how messed up our country is. This is clearly the first step we need into creating healthy discourse, and I'm glad you had the guts to take it.

Personally, I think it's more messed up when people come to half-assed conclusions based fully on assumption and lacking any insight whatsoever, but I will say this: Your post makes Garth's "questioning" of where I stood on the matter look sensible.

[GarthUte]

This "argument" was scored SCP KO 1 when you asked a ridiculous question that at best, could only be described as rhetorical, yet you insisted on trying to pass it off as an earnest attempt to get an answer -- an answer I suspect you already knew, but deliberately chose to ignore, or at least refused to give the benefit of the doubt on. Of course I would never say it's fine for a government entity like the IRS to selectively go after people on their political beliefs. (I would like to see your equally passionate defense of the Associated Press elsewhere on this board as well). I don't talk politics a lot, so I can forgive anyone for not knowing exactly where I stand on every issue; I can't for those who deliberately play dumb to try and win an argument. Do you really think I'm a communist? Don't answer that question -- I don't really want to know the answer.

Most people can discern simple subtleties like the one I've been making. Go right ahead and side with the citizen; no one's faulting you for that. I wouldn't expect any different from you or anyone else. But if in your eyes, I support the IRS for what Vandersloot had to endure, then it's OK for me to label you as homophobic and racist because you defend Vandersloot and hammer Obama. What's the difference? Both are knee-jerk reactions that are completely absent of perspective.

I'm laughing at you right now because your condescending attitude is causing you to actually believe that you defeated me in this argument. I asked you if you were okay with the government targeting individuals for political reasons and your first assumption was that I was only against it because Vandesloot is a conservative. Even after I assured you that I'd be just as angry if a liberal was targeted, you still had it in your head that I was something you wanted me to be, rather than make the attempt to even consider that I was being honest. The fact that you would assume anything else is more a reflection of you than it is me. Your feeling of superiority is pathetically laughable and you should be mocked for such an attitude.

I'm angered that the Department of Justice went after the AP as it did, because I'm a strict Constitutionalist and believe that the Bill of Rights are as close to perfection that a self-governed people can be. Without a free press, there is tyranny. You don't have to believe what I'm saying here, but I know I'm telling the truth about what I believe.

When I asked you if you're okay with it, it wasn't a rhetorical question, but a request for clarity. I'll concede that it may be my fault that you didn't understand what I was asking, but it doesn't absolve you from the snide assumptions you made of me.

[Jarid in Cedar]

:blink:

[#1 Utefan]

I'm glad you put me in my place by linking me with how messed up our country is. This is clearly the first step we need into creating healthy discourse, and I'm glad you had the guts to take it.

Personally, I think it's more messed up when people come to half-assed conclusions based fully on assumption and lacking any insight whatsoever, but I will say this: Your post makes Garth's "questioning" of where I stood on the matter look sensible.


As an inpartial and new poster to this thread, I am going to weigh in on the debate. I hate to break the news to you Pat but you not only lost this debate, you lost big.

Garth was right with his intial comments. The IRS has no right to target any citizen or group for their political beliefs (right or left). It is a clear violation of our Constitution and has no place in this country. If you find it amusing or are okay with the IRS targeting Vandersloot because you don't like him personally (although I doubt you have ever met the guy) just because you disagree with him politically or due to his stances on the gay marriage issue, you are basically justifying or advocating the first steps to a police state or communistic type of government. Would you be taking the same stance if the roles were reversed and we had a right wing President and administration that was targeting George Soros, Planned Parenthood or LGBT groups?

I am with other posters that find it chilling and have expressed disgust with what appears to have been going on with the IRS and the Obama administration's targeting and scrutiny of perceived political enemies (they publicly targeted seven Romney donors last year). Just because you may lean left and not like the politics of those targeted should in no way, shape, or form excuse what appears to have been going on. This is the argument you have furthered in this thread whether you can admit and concede the point or not. I find it disturbing and sad that many Americans are willing to excuse these actions away and turn the other cheek due to political preferences. Sorry, just calling it how I see it...

[Solon]

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/print-edition/20130525_USC692.png

From The Economist:
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21578387-irs-has-behaved-badly-real-villain-congress-who-will-tame-taxman

[LA Ute]

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/print-edition/20130525_USC692.png

From The Economist:
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21578387-irs-has-behaved-badly-real-villain-congress-who-will-tame-taxman

Great article.

[LA Ute]

Jonathan Turley on "The Rise of the Fourth Branch of Government:"


There were times this past week when it seemed like the 19th-century Know-Nothing Party had returned to Washington. President Obama insisted he knew nothing about major decisions in the State Department, or the Justice Department, or the Internal Revenue Service. The heads of those agencies, in turn, insisted they knew nothing about major decisions by their subordinates. It was as if the government functioned by some hidden hand.

Clearly, there was a degree of willful blindness in these claims. However, the suggestion that someone, even the president, is in control of today’s government may be an illusion....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-rise-of-the-fourth-branch-of-government/2013/05/24/c7faaad0-c2ed-11e2-9fe2-6ee52d0eb7c1_story.html

[Damage U]

I've become so sick of the "us vs them" mentality that has rotted our political process. The asinine smerk that Pat has for Vandersloot and his IRS trouble goes both ways. Conservatives have the same smerk when the shoe's on the other foot.
I been conservative all my voting age life, even with democrat parents and grandparents. I've never believed in being a card carring member of the party and have never voted straight party. As I get older I find myself becoming more and more libertarian. If you want to put me in a labled box I consider myself a conservative with libertarian tendencies.
I'm not sure how we got to this point, but we've been here for awhile and it's getting worse. I believe both parties have their progressive puppet masters and each party will look the other way for the common good of their respective party. "We the People" is being erased from the political relm while we continue our us vs them pissing matches.
I think the media is just part of the problem and I read a good article on the lack of any real journalism. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/our-american-pravda/ Is Investigative Reporter a career anymore or has it been relegated to the local news hack to find out whos dog keeps craping on old Mrs. Soandsos daiseys?
Any ways it's taken me a bout 2 hrs to type this, going back and forth between work duties and this so I've run out of steam for my rant.

[GarthUte]

No matter what side of the gay marriage argument you're on, you ought to be ticked about what the IRS did to the National Organization of Marriage.

http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2163089

[Diehard Ute]

Garth were you as outraged and vocal in 2004, 2006, 2007 when the IRS went after a church when their pastor preached an anti war sermon? Going so far as to demand utility bills to determine the costs associated with the sermon?

There were many such actions, and also many reports that pro-Bush and republican churches weren't investigated for flying political candidates on planes, and endorsing candidates in round about ways.

Or how a group that was 97% funded by Exxon Mobil got an investigation opened on Greenpeace for 3 months after Greenpeace called Exxon Mobil "No 1 climate criminal"


As someone who doesn't back a party and generally despises both of them, it's painfully obvious the IRS has been political for a long time, and the other side only seems to care when it affects them.

Hopefully both sides quit ignoring it 50% of the time and work together to fix it.

[GarthUte]

Garth were you as outraged and vocal in 2004, 2006, 2007 when the IRS went after a church when their pastor preached an anti war sermon? Going so far as to demand utility bills to determine the costs associated with the sermon?

There were many such actions, and also many reports that pro-Bush and republican churches weren't investigated for flying political candidates on planes, and endorsing candidates in round about ways.

Or how a group that was 97% funded by Exxon Mobil got an investigation opened on Greenpeace for 3 months after Greenpeace called Exxon Mobil "No 1 climate criminal"


As someone who doesn't back a party and generally despises both of them, it's painfully obvious the IRS has been political for a long time, and the other side only seems to care when it affects them.

Hopefully both sides quit ignoring it 50% of the time and work together to fix it.

As I told Pat in this thread, yes. I don't like it when the IRS goes after anyone or any entity for political reasons. However, this is happening right now. That's why it's relevant and needs to be investigated.

Are you angry about what is happening now?

[Diehard Ute]

As I told Pat in this thread, yes. I don't like it when the IRS goes after anyone or any entity for political reasons. However, this is happening right now. That's why it's relevant and needs to be investigated.

Are you angry about what is happening now?

Angry? Nope. It's not worth being angry over.

But the investigation should go back to what happened the. A democrat asked for an investigation and got no republican support so it never happened.

I'm more concerned about the bipartisan nature of things than the actions themselves. The republicans and democrats (and their ardent supporters) are the problem, not the solution.

[GarthUte]

Angry? Nope. It's not worth being angry over.

But the investigation should go back to what happened the. A democrat asked for an investigation and got no republican support so it never happened.

I'm more concerned about the bipartisan nature of things than the actions themselves. The republicans and democrats (and their ardent supporters) are the problem, not the solution.

Fair enough.

[Dawminator]

Angry? Nope. It's not worth being angry over.

But the investigation should go back to what happened the. A democrat asked for an investigation and got no republican support so it never happened.

I'm more concerned about the bipartisan nature of things than the actions themselves. The republicans and democrats (and their ardent supporters) are the problem, not the solution.

Spot on.

[pangloss]

Years ago at the Rocket ranch my wife had a couple groups reporting to her. There was a layoff and she had to cut back a few people. We heard through the grapevine that one of the unfortunates who was axed went to work for the Utah State Tax Commission. A couple months after that I received notice from Tax Commission that my state return had been audited and that I owed a couple hundred bucks. It really pissed me off. I was convinced the audit was the result of the guy my wife had laid off taking revenge. Well, I was wrong. I had made a mistake on my return and a computer review kicked it out.

Just because Vandersloot is a homophobic bigot who supported Romney and made outrageous statements about President Obama, doesn't mean he was audited for those reasons. Maybe he claimed multi-million dollar deductions for donating his grandchildren's art to BYU - who knows? Well, it can't be that - their contributor lists are confidential.

In my opinion, every taxpayer earning over say, $1 million per year ought to be audited by the IRS every year.

[LA Ute]

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/A-Smoking-Gun?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


For some time now, we have been aware that Douglas Shulman, then the commissioner of this supposedly independent agency, met with Barack Obama in the White House no fewer than 157 times in the run-up to the 2012 elections. This, too, we are told, is insignificant. The implementation of Obamacare, a matter of profound concern to the President, deeply involved the IRS. The two men simply had to meet over and over and over again.

Yesterday, however, thanks to Investor's Business Daily, however, we learned something new (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/060413-658777-stephanie-cutter-met-with-douglas-shulman-at-white-house.htm). Those "Obamacare implementation meetings" were attended by Stephanie Cutter, deputy campaign manager for Obama's 2012 re-election campaign. "I was in there with him," Cutter acknowledged. "There was nothing nefarious going on."

You can believe Ms. Cutter if you wish. But I am inclined to echo the IBD: the lady in question cannot have been "there to discuss the Easter Egg Roll."

http://cdn4.ricochet.com/var/ezwebin_site/storage/images/media/images/stephaniecutter2/4122000-1-eng-US/StephanieCutter2_large.jpg (http://cdn2.ricochet.com/var/ezwebin_site/storage/images/media/images/stephaniecutter2/4122000-1-eng-US/StephanieCutter2_lightbox.jpg)

[concerned]

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/A-Smoking-Gun?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter



http://cdn4.ricochet.com/var/ezwebin_site/storage/images/media/images/stephaniecutter2/4122000-1-eng-US/StephanieCutter2_large.jpg (http://cdn2.ricochet.com/var/ezwebin_site/storage/images/media/images/stephaniecutter2/4122000-1-eng-US/StephanieCutter2_lightbox.jpg)

Are you sure that is right? I thought I read that Shulman had 157 meetings at the White House, mostly in the West Wing, but not with Obama personally. Also, the vast majority of those meetings (maybe 140) occurred before the date that Shulman testified that he learned about the tea party targeting. I suppose Shulman could be committing perjury to protect Obama or himself, but he was a Bush appointee who would seem to have no real incentive to do the targeting.

[LA Ute]

Are you sure that is right? I thought I read that Shulman had 157 meetings at the White House, mostly in the West Wing, but not with Obama personally. Also, the vast majority of those meetings (maybe 140) occurred before the date that Shulman testified that he learned about the tea party targeting. I suppose Shulman could be committing perjury to protect Obama or himself, but he was a Bush appointee who would seem to have no real incentive to do the targeting.

I don't know that he's right. I was surprised at the notion that Obama was in any meetings. I do think Cutter's presence needs an explanation. She has been one of Obama's top political operatives for years.

EDIT: Because the IRS is so integral to Obamacare's implementation, it is plausible that Shulman was in the White House for meetings about that. (Why wouldn't he be meeting at Health & Human Services, which is responsible for implementing the program?) That still wouldn't explain Cutter's presence.

[concerned]

I don't know that he's right. I was surprised at the notion that Obama was in any meetings. I do think Cutter's presence needs an explanation. She has been one of Obama's top political operatives for years.

EDIT: Because the IRS is so integral to Obamacare's implementation, it is plausible that Shulman was in the White House for meetings about that. (Why wouldn't he be meeting at Health & Human Services, which is responsible for implementing the program?) That still wouldn't explain Cutter's presence.

To the extent (and it was a big extent) that Obamacare implementation was a campaign issue, Cutter could be present to be in a position to explain it or to respond to it on the stump, in speeches, debates, ads, etc.

[LA Ute]

To the extent (and it was a big extent) that Obamacare implementation was a campaign issue, Cutter could be present to be in a position to explain it or to respond to it on the stump, in speeches, debates, ads, etc.

Say what you want. I think Cutter was there in those meetings to advance the conspiracy warned of here:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKR32ImWYzw

[Dawminator]

Yikes. Scary.

[pangloss]

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/A-Smoking-Gun?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter



I read that Shulman visited the WH 11 times. 157 is the number of times he was cleared to visit.

The definition of innuendo is "a veiled or equivocal reflection on character or reputation." A good example is "You can believe Ms. Cutter if you wish. But I am inclined to echo the IBD: the lady in question cannot have been "there to discuss the Easter Egg Roll."

[LA Ute]

I read that Shulman visited the WH 11 times. 157 is the number of times he was cleared to visit.

The definition of innuendo is "a veiled or equivocal reflection on character or reputation." A good example is "You can believe Ms. Cutter if you wish. But I am inclined to echo the IBD: the lady in question cannot have been "there to discuss the Easter Egg Roll."

I honestly don't know what to make of Shulman's visits -- I hadn't heard the cleared/visited distinction before. I hope an investigation clears the air on all of this. But don't you agree that if the situations were reversed and Karl Rove had been attending meetings with the IRS head in the Bush White House, with similar evidence of IRS harassment of liberal groups, liberals would have been up in arms?

[mUUser]

...In my opinion, every taxpayer earning over say, $1 million per year ought to be audited by the IRS every year.


Why?

[Two Utes]

Why?

Because rich people are inherently dishonest and are the enemy, dummy.

[Diehard Ute]

I honestly don't know what to make of Shulman's visits -- I hadn't heard the cleared/visited distinction before. I hope an investigation clears the air on all of this. But don't you agree that if the situations were reversed and Karl Rove had been attending meetings with the IRS head in the Bush White House, with similar evidence of IRS harassment of liberal groups, liberals would have been up in arms?

But evidence shows this went on under Bush and the republicans refused to hold hearings when confronted, ignoring the situation entirely.

That's the problem with our country right now. Too many people see things as republican and democrat. When did we stop all being Americans?

(BTW with as much shady and possibly illegal activity as both parties now engage in, I'm pretty comfortable saying they meet the FBI definition of a gang ;) )

[LA Ute]

But evidence shows this went on under Bush and the republicans refused to hold hearings when confronted, ignoring the situation entirely.

That's the problem with our country right now. Too many people see things as republican and democrat. When did we stop all being Americans?

(BTW with as much shady and possibly illegal activity as both parties now engage in, I'm pretty comfortable saying they meet the FBI definition of a gang ;) )

You may be right, but I haven't seen any evidence that this went on to anything near the same extent during the Bush administration.

By the way, I am quite skeptical that the White House had any direct connection to this. It may be an indirect connection, but that will be extremely difficult, if not impossible to prove.

[Diehard Ute]

You may be right, but I haven't seen any evidence that this went on to anything near the same extent during the Bush administration.

Go do some digging. Churches were being targeted for pastors preaching Anti War sermons.

At the same time churches who supported republican candidates, with pastors openly saying who they backed, and in at least one case using a church helicopter to fly candidates were never looked at.

Again, it pains me that so many of you have this us VS them attitude.

It's time to start caring about the country as a whole. The two party system and the extremes we see now scare the crap out of me on both sides.

[LA Ute]

Go do some digging. Churches were being targeted for pastors preaching Anti War sermons.

At the same time churches who supported republican candidates, with pastors openly saying who they backed, and in at least one case using a church helicopter to fly candidates were never looked at.

Again, it pains me that so many of you have this us VS them attitude.

It's time to start caring about the country as a whole. The two party system and the extremes we see now scare the crap out of me on both sides.

I think the fact of the matter is that currently the left and right have very polarized visions of what country ought to be about. Being an old guy now, I can say that I have never seen it this bad before.

[GarthUte]

Are you sure that is right? I thought I read that Shulman had 157 meetings at the White House, mostly in the West Wing, but not with Obama personally. Also, the vast majority of those meetings (maybe 140) occurred before the date that Shulman testified that he learned about the tea party targeting. I suppose Shulman could be committing perjury to protect Obama or himself, but he was a Bush appointee who would seem to have no real incentive to do the targeting.

Shulman was appointed by Bush in March of '08. He spent less than a year at the IRS while Bush was in office. Shulman's wife is an executive for a far left organization that supports groups that support Obama and his policies.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/31/former-irs-commissioner-shulmans-wife-works-for-liberal-group-fighting-open-campaign-spending/

[GarthUte]

Go do some digging. Churches were being targeted for pastors preaching Anti War sermons.

At the same time churches who supported republican candidates, with pastors openly saying who they backed, and in at least one case using a church helicopter to fly candidates were never looked at.

Again, it pains me that so many of you have this us VS them attitude.

It's time to start caring about the country as a whole. The two party system and the extremes we see now scare the crap out of me on both sides.

I agree that there was targeting of these groups under the Bush administration, but was there any investigations of this targeting? I've not been able to find any reports about the IRS being investigated. And if there was, were people lying about it under oath or taking the 5th? I ask because I can't find anything more than "Bush did it too." And more importantly, Bush doing it does not justify Obama doing it.

[Diehard Ute]

I agree that there was targeting of these groups under the Bush administration, but was there any investigations of this targeting? I've not been able to find any reports about the IRS being investigated. And if there was, were people lying about it under oath or taking the 5th? I ask because I can't find anything more than "Bush did it too." And more importantly, Bush doing it does not justify Obama doing it.

It never got to the point of investigations as the republican controlled congress refused to investigate.

And you're obviously missing my point. It's not to defend one side, it's to point out that both sides are wrong but only seem to care when their "enemy" (for lack of a better term) does it

(It also speaks to the assertion from those who lean right that the left would be outraged if the shoe was on the other foot)

I don't have a dog in the fight. I thoroughly dislike both parties

[pangloss]

I honestly don't know what to make of Shulman's visits -- I hadn't heard the cleared/visited distinction before. I hope an investigation clears the air on all of this. But don't you agree that if the situations were reversed and Karl Rove had been attending meetings with the IRS head in the Bush White House, with similar evidence of IRS harassment of liberal groups, liberals would have been up in arms?

Yes, I agree on both points - I don't know what to make of the visits and if it were Rove my hair would be on fire.

Cheers

[GarthUte]

It never got to the point of investigations as the republican controlled congress refused to investigate.

And you're obviously missing my point. It's not to defend one side, it's to point out that both sides are wrong but only seem to care when their "enemy" (for lack of a better term) does it

(It also speaks to the assertion from those who lean right that the left would be outraged if the shoe was on the other foot)

I don't have a dog in the fight. I thoroughly dislike both parties

I do understand your point and I don't disagree. But there are some who do justify this happening to conservatives because of what happened during the Bush years. I should have been more clear that I didn't mean you were doing it.

[pangloss]

Why?

The IRS is there to collect money. Folks that make lots of money have much more complex tax returns and, by definition, deeper pockets. Randomly choosing taxpayers for the sake of equality is nuts. As Deepthroat said, "follow the money".

[GarthUte]

Trey Gowdy rocks.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Y5dmf5xZJu0

[Ma'ake]

We'll see if/when Darrell Issa releases the transcripts, but it appears a IRS agent who considers himself a "conservative Republican" says the White House isn't involved in the IRS "targeting" of tea party groups.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/conservative-irs-manager-tells-investigators-that-white-house-not-involved-in-targeting/2013/06/09/a24bb23c-d118-11e2-9577-df9f1c3348f5_story.html

It's looking more & more like this is just a murky area of the law, or the tea party groups were pushing the envelope on the nature of their organizations and the IRS attempted to scrutinize them a little.

[U-Ute]

Not that it matters since this "scandal that is worse than Watergate" has all but disappeared at this point, but it is an interesting side bar to the politics in Washington.

Why did it seem like only conservative parties were singled out? Because Republicans asked for such a study:

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/307813-irs-ig-says-audit-limited-to-tea-party-groups



The Treasury inspector general (IG) whose report helped drive the IRS targeting controversy says it limited its examination to conservative groups because of a request from House Republicans.

A spokesman for Russell George, Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, said they were asked by House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) “to narrowly focus on Tea Party organizations.”

[GarthUte]

No evidence of only targeting conservatives in this latest act of incompetence (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/irs_mistakenly_posted_social_security_J8N94UwwIunp vllubAjoxH), but the IRS absolutely needs to clean house and start over. I say get rid of 'em all.

[LA Ute]

IRS chief counsel’s office involved in targeting controversy


The chief counsel’s office for the Internal Revenue Service, headed by a political appointee of President Obama, helped develop the agency’s problematic guidelines for reviewing “tea party” cases, according to a top IRS attorney.

In interviews with congressional investigators, IRS lawyer Carter Hull said his superiors told him that the chief counsel’s office, led by William Wilkins, would need to review some of the first applications the agency screened for additional scrutiny because of potential political activity.

Previous accounts from IRS employees had shown that Washington IRS officials were involved in the controversy, but Hull’s comments represent the closest connection to the White House to date. No evidence to date has definitively linked the White House to the agency’s behavior.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/07/17/irs-chief-counsel-involved-in-targeting-controversy/

I hope this thing gets wrapped up soon.

[LA Ute]

Recognizing that many here will disagree, I think Noonan is right:


In all the day-to-day of the IRS scandals I don’t think it’s been fully noticed that the overall reputation of the agency has suffered a collapse, the kind from which it can take a generation to recover fully. In the long term this will prove damaging to the national morale—what happens to a great nation when its people come to lack even rudimentary confidence in the decisions made by the revenue-gathering arm of its federal government? It will also diminish the hope for faith in government, which whatever your politics is not a good thing. We need government, as we all know. Americans have a right to assume that while theirs may be deeply imperfect, it is not deeply corrupt. What harms trust in governmental institutions now will have reverberations in future administrations.


The scandals that have so damaged the agency took place in just the past few years, since the current administration began. And it is not Republicans on the Hill or conservatives in the press who have revealed the agency as badly managed, political in its actions, and really quite crazily run. That information, or at least the early outlines of it, came from the agency’s own inspector general.


But the point is that it was all so recent. It doesn’t take long to crater a reputation. . . . This White House is careless with the reputation of government. They are a campaigning organization, not a governing one.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324110404578628300074844038.html?m od=opinion_newsreel

[LA Ute]

New Links Emerge in the IRS Scandal

Emails released this week sweep the Federal Election Commission into the conservative-targeting probe.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323681904578642180886421040.html?m od=opinion_newsreel

[LA Ute]

I wish this Paul Ryan had shown up for the debate with that sneering, insolent version of Joe Biden:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO4dXTv_eOc

[Rocker Ute]

I wish this Paul Ryan had shown up for the debate with that sneering, insolent version of Joe Biden:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO4dXTv_eOc

With this whole hard drive crash thing (which is even less believable than John Swallows multiple device crash) I keep thinking to myself, "Were I to sit down for an audit with the IRS with missing records and give an excuse that one, let alone six hard drives of mine had crash destroying my records would THEY believe me or let me off the hook?" Absolutely not. So let's extend the same mercy the IRS extends to people it audits to them.

Now keep in mind this too... not only would hard drives have to crash on personal computers, they would also have to crash on email servers too, which typically have a RAID system set up to help in the event that a hard drive does crash. So really six hard drive crashes severe enough to make all data irretrievable, is likely in a government situation at least 12 hard drive failures (because usually a gov't RAID system would include at least triple redundancy - pretty standard plus at least a 24 hour backup of that raid system) and likely more if they have their systems distributed - which they most certainly do.

The odds of all of these things happening are astronomically low.

We had two hard drives go out within a week period once (one old drive that quit and its replacement turned out to be defective), and it felt completely devastating to my little company, and we lost exactly NO data in the process.

[#1 Utefan]

With this whole hard drive crash thing (which is even less believable than John Swallows multiple device crash) I keep thinking to myself, "Were I to sit down for an audit with the IRS with missing records and give an excuse that one, let alone six hard drives of mine had crash destroying my records would THEY believe me or let me off the hook?" Absolutely not. So let's extend the same mercy the IRS extends to people it audits to them.

Now keep in mind this too... not only would hard drives have to crash on personal computers, they would also have to crash on email servers too, which typically have a RAID system set up to help in the event that a hard drive does crash. So really six hard drive crashes severe enough to make all data irretrievable, is likely in a government situation at least 12 hard drive failures (because usually a gov't RAID system would include at least triple redundancy - pretty standard plus at least a 24 hour backup of that raid system) and likely more if they have their systems distributed - which they most certainly do.

The odds of all of these things happening are astronomically low.

We had two hard drives go out within a week period once (one old drive that quit and its replacement turned out to be defective), and it felt completely devastating to my little company, and we lost exactly NO data in the process.


Regardless of which side of the political aisle you sit on, if you believe this story about all these hard drives failing, emails not retrievable, etc., I have beach front property I'd like to sell you here in Sandy. This coupled with Lois Lerner taking the 5th on too many occasions to count now suggests this scandal goes much deeper and higher up then some are willing to admit.
I am no IT expert but I know enough to know it is almost impossible to lose this many emails and servers (remarkably, almost all
tat the same timeframe and all possibly with direct relation to Lerner and high level IRS employees). This is particularly unbelievable given the fact it involves a government organization that is in a business where detail and record keeping is of paramount importance (at least for those they choose to audit or harass: I guess it is a one way street as Ryan pointed out to that smarmy bureaucrat).

I talked with an IT guy that said*all this stuff should be easily retrievable unless they went to the length to destroy the hard drives and magnetize everything. It is looking more and more like this is what may have occurred.

Watergate didn't happen over night and it took a deep investigation to gradually uncover all the details, who all those with knowledge were, and Nixo's involvement. While there isn't yet evidence to suggest Obama's administration or the President himself ordered or had direct knowledge of the IRS's activities, often, where there is smoke there is fire and this whole thing is getting smellier by the day.

Scrubbing hard drives and severs, people taking the fifth, and a president almost from day 1 of his presidency that has aggressively criticized and used the bully pulpit to go after his political opposition suggest this investigation needs to continue until all the emails, paper trail, and facts are clear.

For those partisan enough to suggest or believe this is nothing more then a Tea Party, politically driven circus, I ask you this: Would you have been saying the same thingin the 70's when a similar investigationof a Republican Nixon administration was taking place? Because at this point, it does seem like there are more and more parallels between the two investigations.

Abuse of political power to harass or diminish your opponents is wrong regardless of which side of the fence you sit on. We are still a Republic so I would hope that is still something all of us can agree upon.

[LA Ute]

For those partisan enough to suggest or believe this is nothing more then a Tea Party, politically driven circus, I ask you this: Would you have been saying the same thing in the 70's when a similar investigation of a Republican Nixon administration was taking place? Because at this point, it does seem like there are more and more parallels between the two investigations.

If the political parties were reversed this would be the biggest story on CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS and certainly MSNBC, not to mention NPR. The Democrats would be going nuts about it and the gleeful but outraged comparisons to Watergate would be everywhere.

[Rocker Ute]

I didn't pay too much attention to this whole thing because I had dismissed it as more partisan bickering until I heard about the damaged hard drives and all the buzzers started going off.

I am in IT and your friend is exactly right, even in the most severe cases even some of the data should be retrievable. To have so many tied to such a specific group is off the charts improbable and points to only one thing, information tampering.

So then the question is why? It would be so much easier to obfuscate info than to destroy it unless the people involved are stupid or the info is so damaging it had to be destroyed.

Like I said before, we should hold them to the same standard they hold us and they should be sentenced to yearly anal probings, garnishment of wages and a payoff regimen that can't possibly be met a la Joe Louis.

[LA Ute]

Here's an interesting piece. The emails we know about are pretty bad; if the "lost" emails are worse, I shudder to think what's in them....

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-26/lois-lerner-s-e-mails-ruh-roh

[LA Ute]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/more-smidgen_796400.html?utm_campaign=Washington+Examin er&utm_source=washingtonexaminer.com&utm_medium=referral


The facts are simple. The IRS systematically targeted conservative and Tea Party groups after their activism proved decisive in the 2010 midterm elections—Obama’s famous “shellacking.” The effects of this targeting were widespread. Some Tea Party groups were neutered in the months before the 2012 presidential election.


Few of the explanations or justifications of this targeting provided by IRS leaders and Obama administration officials have held up. IRS officials at first denied that any targeting had taken place. That was false. They later claimed that the targeting had involved only low-level employees in the Cincinnati office. That was false. They argued that conservative groups weren’t singled out, that progressive groups were subject to the same level of scrutiny. That was false. They argued that the IRS has complied with all requests for information from Congress. That was false.

[LA Ute]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KohtsEmWY2w&sns=em