Even Newer Disclosures on IRS Conduct

[Myron Proudfoot]

Oppsie, it seems Issa told the IRS IG to ONLY ("narrowly focus") look at tea-party groups, and not to pay attention to the scrutiny paid to leftwing groups.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/...al-to-ignore-irs-treatment-of-liberal-groups/

A spokesman for Treasury Inspector General J. Russell George told The Hill on Tuesday that Issa had requested investigators “narrowly focus on tea party organizations.”

And so much for "yeah, well, they were harder on the tea party groups!

The Associated Press on Wednesday confirmed that liberal and progressive groups were subjected the same treatment that conservative groups had complained about, including excessive questioning and extremely long waits. The liberal group Catholics United, for instance, waited seven years before receiving tax exempt status, far longer than any tea party group was forced to wait.

Another RW "scandal" based on distortions, lies and making mountains of molehills. And water is wet and the sun rises in the east.

 

[theprestige]

Oppsie, it seems Issa told the IRS IG to ONLY ("narrowly focus") look at tea-party groups, and not to pay attention to the scrutiny paid to leftwing groups.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/...al-to-ignore-irs-treatment-of-liberal-groups/



And so much for "yeah, well, they were harder on the tea party groups!



Another RW "scandal" based on distortions, lies and making mountains of molehills. And water is wet and the sun rises in the east.

He said, she said. Is there any reason why you are so quick to accept the IG's unsupported excuses?

Because this is a plausible narrative, right? When a competent, professional inspector is given blatantly unprofessional instructions, he complies, and then trots out the "just following (obviously bad) orders" excuse at some politically convenient moment later on.

And what if Issa's office, in a fully above-board and responsible way, told the IG, "there are allegations that conservative groups are being improperly targeted by the IRS, please look into it"? What if the IG is now spinning this as some sort of irresistible mandate from the Congressman to "narrowly focus" on those groups (and by implication ignore similar wrongdoing against other groups)?

The amount of CYA that's going on in this case, I'm surprised you're willing to take anybody's claims at face value.

Anyway while Issa was bossing the IG around, why didn't he just go straight to the IRS and command them to persecute progressive groups, and tell the IG to butt out? Or is that the wrong kind of conspiracy theory to suit the taste of some?

ETA: I mean, what you're really saying is that we should ignore the IG's findings, because the IG totally botched the job, because Congressman Issa told him to. And the IG is now admitting that this is what really happened.

 

[daredelvis]

He said, she said. Is there any reason why you are so quick to accept the IG's unsupported excuses?

Because this is a plausible narrative, right? When a competent, professional inspector is given blatantly unprofessional instructions, he complies, and then trots out the "just following (obviously bad) orders" excuse at some politically convenient moment later on.

And what if Issa's office, in a fully above-board and responsible way, told the IG, "there are allegations that conservative groups are being improperly targeted by the IRS, please look into it"? What if the IG is now spinning this as some sort of irresistible mandate from the Congressman to "narrowly focus" on those groups (and by implication ignore similar wrongdoing against other groups)?

The amount of CYA that's going on in this case, I'm surprised you're willing to take anybody's claims at face value.

Anyway while Issa was bossing the IG around, why didn't he just go straight to the IRS and command them to persecute progressive groups, and tell the IG to butt out? Or is that the wrong kind of conspiracy theory to suit the taste of some?

ETA: I mean, what you're really saying is that we should ignore the IG's findings, because the IG totally botched the job, because Congressman Issa told him to. And the IG is now admitting that this is what really happened.

Suddenly we aren't supposed to take "anybody's claims at face value"? The confirmation bias is strong in this one.

Daredelvis

 

[theprestige]

Suddenly we aren't supposed to take "anybody's claims at face value"? The confirmation bias is strong in this one.

Daredelvis

Please, tell me what my bias is, and how this confirms it. Be sure to include citations, of course.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Please, tell me what my bias is, and how this confirms it. Be sure to include citations, of course.

Do we really need to pretend you aren't a conservative? Your posts in this thread and the other IRS thread clearly show you took Issa at face value.

 

[A'isha]

And what if Issa's office, in a fully above-board and responsible way

 

[tyr_13]

He said, she said. Is there any reason why you are so quick to accept the IG's unsupported excuses?

Because this is a plausible narrative, right? When a competent, professional inspector is given blatantly unprofessional instructions, he complies, and then trots out the "just following (obviously bad) orders" excuse at some politically convenient moment later on.

And what if Issa's office, in a fully above-board and responsible way, told the IG, "there are allegations that conservative groups are being improperly targeted by the IRS, please look into it"? What if the IG is now spinning this as some sort of irresistible mandate from the Congressman to "narrowly focus" on those groups (and by implication ignore similar wrongdoing against other groups)?

The amount of CYA that's going on in this case, I'm surprised you're willing to take anybody's claims at face value.

Anyway while Issa was bossing the IG around, why didn't he just go straight to the IRS and command them to persecute progressive groups, and tell the IG to butt out? Or is that the wrong kind of conspiracy theory to suit the taste of some?

ETA: I mean, what you're really saying is that we should ignore the IG's findings, because the IG totally botched the job, because Congressman Issa told him to. And the IG is now admitting that this is what really happened.

theprestige, I respect a lot of what you write and the reasoning you normally use but this is a little bit desperate. I think the disconnect here is that you're ignoring plausible actions and grouping them with implausible actions. Hand waving as it were as all conspiracy.

Now if it were just 'a Republican', I would be incline to dismiss the importance of such a claim as the request as painting a simple request in the worst light possible, but this being Issa well... not so much. I'd say it's more likely that he used what could otherwise be an above the board claim for a partisan witch hunt. It's perfectly consistent with other actions he really has done. Moreover, it's not (to my level of knowledge) an implausible or out there thing to request of IG. That is their job of course. This isn't the same as 'bossing them around' and it also isn't on the same level of bossing around the IRS offices, something that would be outside the job of the IRS and a Senator. Besides that, by the time Issa knew about the flaggings, the groups already had their exempt status. So him telling them to stop doing something they had already stopped doing is less plausible then requesting the IG look into a specific claim and only a specific claim.

Now this could all be CYA...but that doesn't disprove the claim. It also doesn't make the claim less likely. I guess my point is that it should really surprise absolutely no one if it is completely true without exaggeration.

 

[eeyore1954]

Not my problem.



Because it was the right wing that howled like a stuck pig about it and then immediately tried to make political hay out of it. Now that it turns out that more than just Tea Party groups were targeted and it was done by Republican IRS employees, even Mitch McConnell is starting to backpedal.

During about a twenty month period when many groups with progressive in the name were approved only one was approved with Tea Party in the name. I don't see how to explain this other than it was because the Tea Party groups were subject to much greater scrutiny.

Here are some quotes from today.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...ig-liberal-groups-not-targeted-like-tea-party

Liberal groups seeking tax-exempt status faced less IRS scrutiny than Tea Party groups, according to the Treasury inspector general.
Russell George, Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, told Rep. Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) in a letter dated Wednesday that the IRS did not use inappropriate criteria to scrutinize groups with “progressives” in their name seeking tax-exempt status.

The inspector general also stressed that 100 percent of the groups with “Tea Party,” “patriots” and “9/12” in their name were flagged for extra attention.

George insisted that his office did not limit its audit to Tea Party groups.

Our audit did not find evidence that the IRS used the ‘progressives’ identifier as selection criteria for potential political cases between May 2010 and May 2012,

 

[A'isha]

During about a twenty month period when many groups with progressive in the name were approved only one was approved with Tea Party in the name. I don't see how to explain this other than it was because the Tea Party groups were subject to much greater scrutiny.

Except your statement is not true. Fivethirtyeight's tabulation counted multiple different words for the "progressive" side, while only counting groups that had "Tea Party" in the name. I'm curious as to how many groups with "conservative" in the name were approved during that same time period.

Here are some quotes from today.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...ig-liberal-groups-not-targeted-like-tea-party

This also makes the mistake of comparing "progressive" to "tea party", as if those things were equivalent yet opposite ideological terms. "Conservative" is the counterpart of "progressive", and you'll note that the IRS documents revealed so far didn't flag groups with the word "conservative" in their names at all, unlike groups with the word "progressive" in their name. The equivalent of "tea party" for the IRS were things like "medical marijuana", not "progressive".

As as result, despite what the blog entry you link to implies, left-leaning political groups were indeed subject to the exact same extra scrutiny as tea party groups.

 

[eeyore1954]

The equivalent of "tea party" for the IRS were things like "medical marijuana", not "progressive".

I think you must be kidding or desperate for the facts to fit what you want.
I do not dispute that groups with medical marijuana in the name were singled out for closer scrutiny. I don't believe they are a counterpart to the Tea Party.

As as result, despite what the blog entry you link to implies, left-leaning political groups were indeed subject to the exact same extra scrutiny as tea party groups.

It wasn't just a blog entry it is from a letter from Treasury Inspector General George.

 

[tyr_13]

I think you must be kidding or desperate for the facts to fit what you want.
I do not dispute that groups with medical marijuana in the name were singled out for closer scrutiny. I don't believe they are a counterpart to the Tea Party.

It wasn't just a blog entry it is from a letter from Treasury Inspector General George.

'Equivalent' not 'counterpart'.

The distinction here is that both groups are supposedly single issue groups tightly associated with either liberal or conservatives, that they are equivalent in that regard. They are not 'counterparts' in that they don't have equal support, the Tea Party groups aren't all just anti-tax, etc.

Equivalent for the purpose under discussion I think.

 

[A'isha]

I do not dispute that groups with medical marijuana in the name were singled out for closer scrutiny. I don't believe they are a counterpart to the Tea Party.

They were as far as the IRS documentation was concerned, which is why medical marijuana groups were treated the exact same way as tea party groups.

It wasn't just a blog entry it is from a letter from Treasury Inspector General George.

It was blog entry that may have quoted from parts of the letter sent by IG George, but it was still a blog entry.

 

[eeyore1954]

'Equivalent' not 'counterpart'.

The distinction here is that both groups are supposedly single issue groups tightly associated with either liberal or conservatives, that they are equivalent in that regard. They are not 'counterparts' in that they don't have equal support, the Tea Party groups aren't all just anti-tax, etc.

Equivalent for the purpose under discussion I think.

I agree that medical marijuana groups were singled out for equivalent scrutiny.
But medical marijuana is illegal for federal purposes.

 

[A'isha]

I agree that medical marijuana groups were singled out for equivalent scrutiny.
But medical marijuana is illegal for federal purposes.

Again, that has no bearing on the tax status of medical marijuana advocacy groups. Groups focusing on healthcare legislation and middle east conflict issues (all perfectly legal) were also singled out for equivalent scrutiny as the tea party groups.

The tea party groups weren't singled out because they were conservative, but because they were single-issue political advocacy groups applying for tax exempt status.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Another "scandal" by Issa thwarted.. with facts. Imagine that. Now he's back to Benghazi.

 

[jj]

Oh, look, now Issa is caught with his drawers down!

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/...al-to-ignore-irs-treatment-of-liberal-groups/

He ORDERED the investigators to do a biased search.

Far from "responsible", it's actually fraudulent, abuse of authority, and obvious misconduct.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I doubt the facts will bother the GOP shills that want to believe this IRS scandal is valid.

 

[RandFan]

I agree that medical marijuana groups were singled out for equivalent scrutiny.
But medical marijuana is illegal for federal purposes.

? So what?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Political parties are just as illegal in regards to trying to get tax-exempt status.

 

[eeyore1954]

? So what?

According to the IRS a charitable organization cannot be established for illegal purposes. Medical marijuana dispensaries while legal under many state laws are illegal under federal law. The exemption is a federal exemption.
If an organization is not involved in this aspect I believe it will qualify. But that is why they are looked at.
If I am right that an organization that is only giving information about medical marijuana or something along those lines is eligible for an exemption I would agree they are also being unfairly being singled out if they are subject to anything more than inquiries about the purpose. But this is not in my opinion an example of a progressive group being singled out.

In spite of what thaiboxerken says after being held in limbo for 2 -3 years many of these illegal Tea PArty organiztions were given the exemption.

I don't believe the premise that medical marijuana is a liberal issue.
From AntPogo's post

The equivalent of "tea party" for the IRS were things like "medical marijuana", not "progressive".

As as result, despite what the blog entry you link to implies, left-leaning political groups were indeed subject to the exact same extra scrutiny as tea party groups.

According to an article I saw in the Huffington Post "Medical Marijuana Laws For States Supported By More Than Two-Thirds Of Republicans, Poll Finds"