Rubio calls for IRS commissioner to resign.

[RandFan]

You honestly believe they had to be denied status in order for there to have been harm done to them?

What harm was done to them?

All of them are potentially political but yet none were denied status. They were just singled out for much greater scrutiny.

So what? Liberal groups were singled out also. If you take away the perceptions of the political nature of this, it is absolutely reasonable to focus on groups that are apparently political since political groups are not eligible for 401(c) (it amount to profiling. Not profiling conservatives but profiling apparently political groups not eligible).

There may or may not have been malice. The people who did it say no but it was also denied for a year that it was being done.

Don't attribute to malice what can be explained with CYA.

You don't see other reasons for firing someone. I don't think his particular actions have to rise to the level of malice or harm in order for him to be removed from his job. What about the apparent fact that he knew or should have known about what was going on when he wrote the letters that did not acknowledge what had happened.

Which harmed who? Why did he do what he did?

No one demanded that Schulman step down and who care who he was appointed by.

What is the basis for conservatives to target conservatives?

One of the directors jobs is public relations and someone failed drastically on that part.

AGREED! But here is the problem. Public relations is politics. See my next post.

 

[RandFan]

Not a tu quoque:

This is an example purely for comparison purposes.

During the Bush era an appointee Monica Goodling fired employees for political purpose. She did NOT commit a crime. However, her intentions were malicious and harmed people for political purposes.

If you can show that Shulman and Miller did what they did maliciously and that people were harmed I'm there. If you can show that what they did was purely for political purposes, I'm there. I'll happily condemn the both of them.

Wrong is wrong. The actions of Goodling cannot excuse the actions of Miller and Shulman. But answer me this, what have they done that takes this issue from simply trying to do a good thing in a perceived bad way, to malice and/or harm?

 

[eeyore1954]

What harm was done to them?

The time and additional work is the harm.

So what? Liberal groups were singled out also. If you take away the perceptions of the political nature of this, it is absolutely reasonable to focus on groups that are apparently political since political groups are not eligible for 401(c) (it amount to profiling. Not profiling conservatives but profiling apparently political groups not eligible).

Were liberal groups singled out because of some apparent liberal connection. I understand the IRS needs to do some profiling (the more money you make the more likely you are to be audited) but it should be based upon political beliefs. If the IRS released other names and words that triggered the request for more information and they also included liberal labels it would not look as bad. Of course I imagine there was a plethora of names like Tea Party in the applications.

Don't attribute to malice what can be explained with CYA.

I am not attributing it to malice but it cannot be ruled out. Especially at the lower level.

AGREED! But here is the problem. Public relations is politics. See my next post.

I guess it depends upon the definition of politics

 

[RandFan]

The time and additional work is the harm.

? Could you please explain? The GOP has voted 37 time to repeal Obamacare knowing that the senate would never pass it and Obama would never sign it. They know that its a waste of time for political purposes. Is that harm and what should be done about it?

Were liberal groups singled out because of some apparent liberal connection. I understand the IRS needs to do some profiling (the more money you make the more likely you are to be audited) but it should be based upon political beliefs. If the IRS released other names and words that triggered the request for more information and they also included liberal labels it would not look as bad. Of course I imagine there was a plethora of names like Tea Party in the applications.


I am not attributing it to malice but it cannot be ruled out. Especially at the lower level.

To what end? Seriously, to what end?

Report: The IRS also targeted at least three liberal groups

I'm guessing there were not as many new liberal groups that appeared political. If you can show an equal number of applicants were potentially political then I'd accept that evidence as possible partisanship on the part of the IRS.

I guess it depends upon the definition of politics

If the intent is to commit a crime then it is more than simply politics. If the intent is to deny Conservatives what they are legally entitled to then it's more than simply politics, It's partisanship and a violation of law. If the intent is to do their job of making certain political groups not entitled to 401(c) status not get status then it's not partisan and not a violation of law.

Where is the evidence that, like the Monica Goodling case, demonstrates that this is a violation of the Hatch Act. Is there evidence that anyone intentionally targeted groups for partisan reasons. Something like the evidence we had in the Monica Goodling case?

On May 12, the New York Times published an article about Goodling repeatedly engaging in "prohibited personnel practices" while at the Justice Department. "You have a Monica problem" several Justice Department officials told Robin C. Ashton, a criminal prosecutor at the Department of Justice. "She believes you're a Democrat and doesn't feel you can be trusted."[25] Ashton was denied a promotion during Goodling's tenure, but in the Obama administration, Attorney General Eric Holder determined that she was qualified and appointed her as Counsel for Professional Responsibility, the head of the Justice Department's internal ethics unit.[26]

If you can show me evidence that rises to that level then I'm on your side and will aggressively attack the Obama administration. All I want is unequivocal evidence. Monica fired decent people for no other reason than partisan purposes. What group was denied 401(c) status for purely partisan purposes? Make that case. At least make the case that the actions were partisan absent any harm.

If you can make that case you will have an ally in me I promise.

 

[eeyore1954]

I am usually not in favor of wasting time in Congress. It is not unusual for a bill to passed for symbolic reasons by either side. But I don't see how that negates or has anything to do with the harm because of lost time and additional requirements imposed on these groups.

Originally Posted by Washington Post
Report: The IRS also targeted at least three liberal groups.

Is there any indication there were targeted because they had a liberal sounding name. Of course there are always some applications reviewed more thoroughly.

Plus there is the issue of 3 to at least 70.

I'm guessing there were not as many new liberal groups that appeared political. If you can show an equal number of applicants were potentially political then I'd accept that evidence as possible partisanship on the part of the IRS.

You might be right but I doubt if it is a 70 to 3 ratio.

To what end? Seriously, to what end?

Political reasons to slow down these Tea Party and conservative applications, hatred of the Tea Party to name two off the top of my head. I didn't say I thought there was malice only that I did not rule it out.

Whether or not Monica Goodling did something illegal has no bearing on this. I don't know enough about her case but if she did in fact ever violate any laws did anyone try to sue. After all weren't these lawyers and lawyers love to litigate.

If you can show me evidence that rises to that level then I'm on your side and will aggressively attack the Obama administration. All I want is unequivocal evidence.

At this point I don't believe President Obama had any hand whatsoever in this. All you want is "unequivocal evidence". you will not often find that.

 

[RandFan]

I am usually not in favor of wasting time in Congress. It is not unusual for a bill to passed for symbolic reasons by either side. But I don't see how that negates or has anything to do with the harm because of lost time and additional requirements imposed on these groups.

I don't understand this at all. There was no apparent intent to cause harm. There was no harm. Your reasoning is circular and special pleading.

Is there any indication these groups were targeted because they had a liberal sounding name. Of course there are always some applications reviewed more thoroughly.

I've no evidence either way. It is plausible that A.) There was a wave of applications due to the rise in popularity of the Tea Party and there was no liberal analog. B.) They were sincerely doing their job though they failed the political ethic of avoiding the appearance of impropriety.

Plus there is the issue of 3 to at least 70.
You might be right but I doubt if it is a 70 to 3 ratio.

The Tea Party movement sparked a wave of applications. There was no liberal analog.

Political reasons to slow down these Tea Party and conservative applications, hatred of the Tea Party to name two off the top of my head. I didn't say I thought there was malice only that I did not rule it out.

How long did they slow them down? How much money was lost as a result of having to wait for approval? Why shouldn't a group that looks political not be scrutinized?

Whether or not Monica Goodling did something illegal has no bearing on this.

Of course it has some bearing. It's instructive of what is a legitimate partisan violation of the Hatch act. Honestly eeyore, if there was evidence of an intentional violation of the Hatch act I'd be with you with bells on.

I mention Monica Goodling to demonstrate what evidence I would accept to think that anyone in the IRS violated the Hatch Act. That's all. It's not to excuse any behavior. Wrong is wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right. But I don't see this event rising to the level of violating the Hatch act.

At this point I don't believe President Obama had any hand whatsoever in this. All you want is "unequivocal evidence". you will not often find that.

If your point is that the IRS violated the ethic that one should avoid the appearance of impropriety (a political ethic) then I'm with you. If you think that there is no evidence to date of anyone committing a crime (violated the Hatch Act) then I'm with you.

 

[DavidJames]

I wonder if there is anything that will satisfy Republicans short of Obama resigning or being impeached. At least before the next election?

 

[mgidm86]

I would not call for a resignation without evidence either but the fact that he knew for over a year and apparently said nothing is not good. And since he was the one who wrote the letters responding to the GOP make me believe Rubio meant him.

Since when does politics require evidence?

 

[stevea]

Marco Rubio Calls For Non-Existent IRS Commissioner To Resign

Odd that Obama had no difficulty finding the " Non-Existent IRS Commissioner", asking for, accepting and announcing his resignation. Why no juvenile snarky attacks against Obama ?

If the USA Today had in big bold letters that Obama should apologize personally, how is it that there's no suggesting that Obama has involved?

Perhaps that comic book newspaper is distorting the news ? Dumbing it down ? Let's look closely at your case ....

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-calls-for-investigation-and-apology/2153267/

Gregory Korte, Fredreka Schouten and Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY10:21 a.m. EDT May 12, 2013
WASHINGTON — President Obama should apologize for the admission by the IRS that it singled out conservative Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny as they applied for non-profit status, Republican members of Congress said Sunday. [...]

Well first it's ridiculous to apologize for the admission of error - nonsense thinking, terrible journalism as it was never said.

This refers to R- Sen. Susan Collins Sunday interview w/ Candy Crowley ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7z_m7Xkg1LI#!
(around 1:20 of this boring interview). In the interview Crowley reads from this Washington Post editorial (by WP editorial board),
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...9167074_1_u-s-democracy-partisanship-shortcut

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

. Then Collins is asked if "Public apologies [with unspecified source] needed here ?", and the answer is "Absolutely.".

So it appears to be false that Republican Senators called for Obama's [personal] apology. Instead Collins states the some apology is needed in response to a 'let me put words in your mouth' citation by Crowley.

I can't and won't speak to the WP editorial board's silly demand for personal apologies from the potentially blameless. I can't imagine what the USA-Today staffers were thinking to imagine they someone should apologize for a 'coming clean' admission of error. It's shameful of the USA-T to distort 'apologies are absolutely needed' into a claim that Senators were demanding Obama apologize. It's part of the sad state of journalism today.

What is clear is that the Right is not generally blaming Obama for the IRS dust-up at this point. Of course partisans on both sides will try to assign blame to 'other', but that will require evidence to make it stick. We're not there yet.

=====

[...]
If the accusation is that these flags were politically motivated, isn't that an admission that the organizations turned up by using them are likely political organizations? It seems like political organizations applying for this status merit closer scrutiny to make sure they're not doing any of the things that would disqualify them for this status.

I think there is an fundamental error in your argument. 501c's cannot support political campaigns or candidates, but they certainly can and do participate in politics. 501(c)(4)s can even lobby within limitations. The question becomes - were some groups targeted for delays and extra scrutiny w/o just cause. The title of a group could never be just cause.

Once it became obvious that these flags do not result in applicants that fail to qualify, they should not continue using them. I've not seen any evidence that they did so.

That's not an acceptable approach. You can't arbitrarily target groups based on what the IG describes as " inappropriate criteria", then slow-walk them. This prevents the groups from raising funds. Effectiveness is not an acceptable reason to violate civil rights.

I don't think that's funny. Why don't we have something other than an acting director? Why have the GOP prevented a permanent director?

Blatent partisanship much ?

IRS Schulmans 5yr term ended in November and no one expected a permanent nominee hearing until after the election. Millers temp appointed wasn't up yet and AFAIKT The WH has produced no permanent nominee. No blocking going on there at all.

If you are referring to the ATF - then you need to explain how the Dem dominated Senate was blocked by a Rep minority from having hearings. Reid can get the hearings anytime he wants.

But the one that held the office during this perceived "scandal"* has already resigned. If there were even actually a scandal here, this would be analogous to holding Ford responsible for Watergate and demanding his resignation after Nixon had already resigned.

Not so. Miller was Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement at IRS since 2009 (the entire period of the offenses), and an IRS manager for 25yrs. Miller was directly responsible for the mis-reporting to Congress in July 2012 tho' he reportedly knew the facts in May. The Nixon/Ford analogy fails - Miller was in deep on this very topic..

*In fact, I think the real scandal is how many overtly political organizations are forming "social welfare" non profits just to get that status for fund raising purposes.

"Political organization" has a specific meaning wrt IRC 527(e)(1), which basically is any sort of organization that "primarily" funds activities meant to influence "nominations, election, or appointment" to any office. "Political orgs" in this technical sense cannot qualify for 501c3/4, however a 501c3/4 can promote policy & law and the c4s can even spend money lobbying. It's social welfare to promote an understanding of the Constitution, or promote Parks or Free Trade - and these necessarily lead to political policy issues. I see no way to segregate positions from policy, nor is it required by 501c.

Ignoring current law, and considering what should be ...
I'm a little puzzled at why we are so concerned about direct political involvement by these non-profits. If your local "friends of the library" 501c3/4 can promote policy and expenditures, then why shouldn't they be allowed to directly fund political campaigns of candidates they prefer ? What exactly is the harm ?

Of course McCain-Feingold has added legal hurdles for official "political orgs", but when considering what should be, I don't think McC-F makes the cut.

Which makes Rubios letter silly. Thank you.

Not so much. The acting Comiss was a big part of the problem.

It would be an empty gesture for the current "acting" commissioner to resign

Since Miller was direclty involve in this issue as IRS commissioner for enforcement 2009-2012, the entire period, and reportedly mislead Congress - then no, you are wrong, he is at least part of a management problem at IRS. Miller is deeply in the mix of this problem.

If indeed anyone was to blame, which really requires evidence of maliciously targeting these groups.

The IG report says it was "inappropriate", that rogue employees were told to cease and didn't. Clearly it was believed by the agency to be wrong, so managers told actors to cease. It's likely a civil rights violation in the form of inappropriately selecting particular groups for extra scrutiny & delay, but the FBI & DOJ will review that. I don't believe your requirement for maliciousness applies. There is no well-meaning way to unjustly discriminate.

But that's not what Rubio is calling for anyway. He certainly didn't think he was talking about someone who held a position lower than Commissioner at the time. He was obviously oblivious to the fact that Shulman recently retired.

How did you determine this without a Vulcan mind-meld to Rubio ? Why is it so unlikely that he meant the acting Comiss but dropped the 'acting' term ?

Here is a list of all IRS Commissioners
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_Commissioner#Current_and_past_commissioners
Note that 28 of 77 (36% if I counted correctly) were "acting". It's not uncommon.

I would hope he wasn't ask to resign just because some politician called for it.

I don't suggest that Miller was the heart of problem, but he was certainly central to the to IRS management's failure to address the problem adequately. I'd still like to hear his take.

Well, let's look at this. How many Conservative groups were denied status?

What if it was one ? Is that acceptable to you ? What if groups were delayed so that none of them could collect donations w/o the tax status - so they were prevented from acting ? Delay is just as destructive as denial.

How many of those groups were potentially political and perhaps not deserving of a 401(c)?

'Political' is not criteria that excludes 501c classification, otherwise ACORN would not be a 501c4. Or how about this - Obama's campaign re-inaugurated themselves as "Organizing for Action" and claims 501c4 status.
http://www.barackobama.com/about/about-ofa?source=footer-nav

There are two concepts in Tort Law known as harm and malice. In order to receive compensatory damages there must be harm. In order to receive punitive damages there needs to be malice (yes I know none of this event is a Tort but work with me a moment). Absent malice and harm I see no reason whatsoever to fire Miller other than political reasons. None. As I understand Bush appointed both Shulman and Miller.

1. Since this is criminal law and not civil tort, your concepts can't be applied. Still, this wasn't some software that went bad and generated only TeaParty names to investigate. These were humans employees (according to IG) that had been told to stop the activity, but who continued anyway. It's quite difficult to read that as anything but motivation by malice. Even if well-intended - its still a civil rights violation AND then likely includes criminal intent after being told to cease.

2. Miller was Comiss of Enforcement, at IRS and misinformed Congress. This misinformation to Congress could be criminal (perjury & obstruction of Congress), but that requires intent that is not yet in evidence.

3. Miller wasn't "fired" he was asked to resign. Given Miller's direct involvement in the IRS management&enforcement-side failures on this very topic, it's pretty clear that he could not be an effective commissioner. The Dem head of Ways&Means said Miller was in deep trouble and his opponents have called Miller "liar". I don't like this since we haven't heard Millers side of the story, nor the details, but replacing Miller was a rational, reasonable decision, politics aside. Hopefully Daniel Werfel is squeaky-clean.

As Shulman said, mistakes were made but they were not partisan.

How can the search/selection terms "tea party," "9/12" and "patriot" possibly be considered non-partisan ? The article reports the claim with no supporting evidence.

Yeah, I would hope that politics were not the singular reason but there is zero evidence for me to believe that in the end this is anything but politics.

Schulman and Miller were both, at least in part, responsible as managers of IRS for the failure to report accurately to Congress, and for allowing this problem to continue. I don't think anyone is suggesting that either Commissioner was directly responsible for the targeting problem. Still - they are IMO both demonstrably ineffective managers who need to be removed and either may end up with criminal charges (tho' that's a bit unlikely IMO). It's far from political to remove proven ineffective managers.

 

[AlBell]

True!!! And I would love to see the major conservatives arrested, tried and convicted for the evil they have done to this country and a very large number of it's citizens. That would finally show them being responsibly accountable.

Specifically, what acts are you referring to?

 

[AlBell]

What harm was done to them?

So what? Liberal groups were singled out also. If you take away the perceptions of the political nature of this, it is absolutely reasonable to focus on groups that are apparently political since political groups are not eligible for 401(c) (it amount to profiling. Not profiling conservatives but profiling apparently political groups not eligible).

Don't attribute to malice what can be explained with CYA.

Which harmed who? Why did he do what he did?

What is the basis for conservatives to target conservatives?

AGREED! But here is the problem. Public relations is politics. See my next post.

The harm was compiling conservative donor lists as targets for potential added IRS scrutiny. That imo reeks of malice.

 

[AlBell]

The transcript of the current ongoing congressional hearing with Miller and IRS IG George will be interesting. So far I see no way Miller and George will evade perjury charges once emails and other documents are available for congress's scrutiny.

 

[RandFan]

The harm was compiling conservative donor lists as targets for potential added IRS scrutiny.

Your citations for this compiling of conservative donor lists is missing.

That imo reeks of malice.

You are entitled to an opinion. We are entitled to evidence. Got any?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The president last night asked a non existent person who was not accountable to resign.

Actually, he asked a real person to resign. I strongly disapprove.

We used to consider someone innocent until proven guilty. Here, a person's career can be ended without even evidence that a crime took place (much less that that person was responsible for the crime).

 

[Newtons Bit]

Actually, he asked a real person to resign. I strongly disapprove.

We used to consider someone innocent until proven guilty. Here, a person's career can be ended without even evidence that a crime took place (much less that that person was responsible for the crime).

He lied to members of Congress. That'll get you fired every time.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

He lied to members of Congress.

That a serious accusation. In the country I live in, a person accused is presumed innocent. Due process and all that.

 

[smashingyoungman]

That a serious accusation. In the country I live in, a person accused is presumed innocent. Due process and all that.

That only applies to juries and such. We plebs can make up our own minds as we please, when we please.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Failure to acknowledge that conservative groups have been improperly targeted for closer scrutiny is not itself perjury.

Indeed, the fact that we're talking about a matter of opinion makes it even more difficult to prove that it's perjury. Also, from what I've read groups were flagged by a set of key words that included "tea party," "patriot", "9/12 project". It's arguable whether or not the motive was to flag conservative groups or to flag groups that might reasonably be trying to wrongfully get status as a "social welfare" organization when they are in fact primarily a political group and should be a 527 groups.

There may well have been wrongdoing in the IRS (especially, as I've noted, if they continued using these flags after it became apparent that they were not productive in identifying problematic applications). But reasonable minds can disagree over that point, and it's not perjury to disagree over what is or is not proper.

So unless someone has evidence that Miller was involved in wrongdoing or intentionally covering up wrongdoing, he should not have been pressured to resign. As Mooseman noted on page 1, the correct sequence of events should have been investigate, verify, then (depending on the outcome of the investigation) terminate (and possibly prosecute).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That only applies to juries and such. We plebs can make up our own minds as we please, when we please.

We're talking about ending a man's career. I do think such things should follow legal due process--especially when the people calling for ending that career include a Congressman and the POTUS. Such calls for resignation are tantamount to firing.

The topic of this thread is not plebs such as you and I saying Miller ought to have resigned.

 

[RandFan]

Failure to acknowledge that conservative groups have been improperly targeted for closer scrutiny is not itself perjury.

Indeed, the fact that we're talking about a matter of opinion makes it even more difficult to prove that it's perjury. Also, from what I've read groups were flagged by a set of key words that included "tea party," "patriot", "9/12 project". It's arguable whether or not the motive was to flag conservative groups or to flag groups that might reasonably be trying to wrongfully get status as a "social welfare" organization when they are in fact primarily a political group and should be a 527 groups.

There may well have been wrongdoing in the IRS (especially, as I've noted, if they continued using these flags after it became apparent that they were not productive in identifying problematic applications). But reasonable minds can disagree over that point, and it's not perjury to disagree over what is or is not proper.

So unless someone has evidence that Miller was involved in wrongdoing or intentionally covering up wrongdoing, he should not have been pressured to resign. As Mooseman noted on page 1, the correct sequence of events should have been investigate, verify, then (depending on the outcome of the investigation) terminate (and possibly prosecute).

Of course it's difficult to gin up outrage that way. If you are a politician and want to get something out of it then perhaps it's best to jump the gun. If the story just fizzles out you've got nothing. By acting before an investigation you get it on the books that it's a scandal and you can simply add up the scandals as people are doing now. To the average non-skeptic they might think "there must be something there".