IRS Investigating The Scourge Of Hollywood

[G.T.]

The Dinesh story is intriguing.

It's a good ethics question: if you're a Federal employee and know that someone has broken the law, but that same someone is very vocally outspoken about the Current occupant of the Oval Office, do you lay off because the partisan cynics will all cry foul, or do you do the right thing?

Conversely, if he's innocent, is it a political witch hunt?

Lastly, without the answers: it's all hogwash.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Before starting a thread such as this, you should probably know:

-is it the irs' job to audit 501c3 applications?
-is the irs in fact ignoring liberal applications for audit?

And your story, and likely you, doesn't really have a clue.

Heard on my drive to work on npr

70% con 30% lib orgs were reviewed.

of course npr defended this clear use of the irs as a strong arm intimidation.

And those 30% lib organizations were "Pre" audited, to make sure they only audited the lib organizations 00% in line with the law. They intentionality fail to audit lib organizations that aren't in compliance with IRS code.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

How did the alleged multiple contributions become something about which the FEC was made aware?

Did one of the "other" people (who made the contribution in their own name but who got "repaid" allegedly by Dinesh) have a sudden fit of "conscience" and turn himself or herself (or Dinesh) in? Was it an anonymous report?

I read some words about the case attributed to Dinesh's pretty well-known lawyer, Braffman. On that basis, at least for the limited purpose of this discussion, I am prepared to engage in "what if."

Let's assume that Dinesh did the deeds: He asked OTHER people to make contributions to the unnamed Senate candidate and then, some time later, Dinesh paid those contributor(s) back. That WOULD appear to mean that Dinesh gave more in campaign contributions than the "law" permits.

U.S. Code › Title 2 › Chapter 14 › Subchapter I › § 441f
2 U.S. Code § 441f - Contributions in name of another prohibited

​

Current through Pub. L. 113-65. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

No person shall make a contribution in the name of another person or knowingly permit his name to be used to effect such a contribution, and no person shall knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the name of another person.

Side note:

I wonder if there is an argument to be made that the strict limits on what citizens may contribute is a violation of the right of free speech?

 

[R.D.]

It is a phony scandal. I'll wait for your smoking gun. Darryl Issa will have it ANY MINUTE now.

How could Chuckie have missed the talking points memo?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...sing-irs-to-curtail-tea-party-activities.html

 

[Jarhead]

They do?

You haven't seen my threads on guns, healthcare, corporatocracy, etc.


You're just one of those dopes who, when disagreed with, puts everyone in a box: "the left!!!"

and you are aware that I am not against abortion rights and gay marriage.

But that doesn't stop you from calling me a right wing hack.

So there goes your defense my man.

You ARE a hack, is why I call you a hack.

You make comments about vacations and shit like that. The small petty shit only partisan hacks care about.

I think he is a horrible president, so yes, I will make comments about anything I feel is amateurish.

in 2008, I did not like the GOP field. I liked Hillary. I followed the primaries and was intrigued by Obama. Great speaker, intelligent. He captured me.
Then he lied about public financing. We won the primaries and then he said '**** it, now I can do and say what I want'...and that pissed me off.
I was very turned off to his affiliation with Reverend Wright. Me? I would have walked out of that church...and I would not want to vote for anyone who wouldn't.
So then I started to watch him with a different view..

So yes, I don't like the man. At all.

So yes, when he says "we all need to tighten our belts" and then takes a flight to NYC for dinner and a show, it is hypocritical and I will comment on it.

He is out of his league. His lack of experience coupled with being so ideologically driven happens to be a very dangerous combination.

 

[Jarhead]

You ARE a hack, is why I call you a hack.

You make comments about vacations and shit like that. The small petty shit only partisan hacks care about.

lol....

Whatever floats your ******* boat.

I don't drive a boat, creep.

Ah yes, name calling.

Sign of insecurity.

 

[Zoom-boing]

[MENTION=19867]G.T.[/MENTION]

You really don't have a problem with this? Why not?

IRS suggests no more than 3 months

Progressive groups.....3 weeks to 3 months

Conservative groups....6 months to 3 years.

AND NO EXPLANATION AS TO WHY

 

[G.T.]

lol....

Whatever floats your ******* boat.

I don't drive a boat, creep.

Ah yes, name calling.

Sign of insecurity.

incessantly repeating the same point on a message board is a sign of insecurity.

calling the leader of the free world out of his league - - - - - from the chair of a staffing agency is a sign of insecurity.

 

[Jarhead]

I don't drive a boat, creep.

Ah yes, name calling.

Sign of insecurity.

incessantly repeating the same point on a message board is a sign of insecurity.

calling the leader of the free world out of his league - - - - - from the chair of a staffing agency is a sign of insecurity.

Not responding to facts and simply saying a phony scandal is childish.

Getting no response warrants continually posting it.

The more you ignore it, the more you are saying "I don't know what the **** to say"

IRS suggests no more than 3 months

Progressive groups.....3 weeks to 3 months

Conservative groups....6 months to 3 years

Why?

 

[Jarhead]

I don't drive a boat, creep.

Ah yes, name calling.

Sign of insecurity.

incessantly repeating the same point on a message board is a sign of insecurity.

calling the leader of the free world out of his league - - - - - from the chair of a staffing agency is a sign of insecurity.

interesting...

Saying that a man with only a half a term as a junior senator is out of his league as it pertains to the presidency is a sign of insecurity?

Actually, not recognizing the possibility of that is a sign of immaturity.....or perhaps you are simply a victim of the Obama craze.

 

[G.T.]

[MENTION=19867]G.T.[/MENTION]

You really don't have a problem with this? Why not?

IRS suggests no more than 3 months

Progressive groups.....3 weeks to 3 months

Conservative groups....6 months to 3 years.

AND NO EXPLANATION AS TO WHY

Because I've heard the testimony in regard to it.

Applications went from roughly 1k to over 3400 in that office because of the citizens united decision, and so a bola list was created (which they admitted post haste was unethical, but I can understand as a sane minded person why it was done).

Of the uptic, there was a mass amount of tea party activist groups. there were close to 200, whereas groups with the name progressive in the name were 20 (off the top of my head) and usually "progressive," according to the IG report, was seen in a historical sense and not a political one, whereas "tea party" was a political movement born right when the recession began.

so when they say only "30%" of the groups with "progressive" in the title were held back for scrutiny, the 30% needs to be understood in the context of their only having been 20 total anyways and OUTside of that 20 with THAT name, there were OTHER names besides "Progressive" that were, in fact, targeted.


The reason for the time table it took to turn around the applications varied per testimony, ranging from IRS incompetence to the applicants mishandling of the paperwork themselves.

Of the sworn testimony, all (100%) of every employee under oath said that they had no political motivation but that the new regulations and understaffing were the underlying cause of the (unethical) scrutiny.




When it's called a "phony" scandal, phony is being used in the sense that it doesn't in any way shape or form point back to the Whitehouse itself, and never did. Issa was actually caught holding back transcripts from the media that lead away from the narrative, and became infuriated when Cummings decided to release it himself.

And the reason I answered now, and not before, is because I actually have a modicum of respect for the poster of which I'm responding.

 

[G.T.]

Ah yes, name calling.

Sign of insecurity.

incessantly repeating the same point on a message board is a sign of insecurity.

calling the leader of the free world out of his league - - - - - from the chair of a staffing agency is a sign of insecurity.

interesting...

Saying that a man with only a half a term as a junior senator is out of his league as it pertains to the presidency is a sign of insecurity?

Actually, not recognizing the possibility of that is a sign of immaturity.....or perhaps you are simply a victim of the Obama craze.

If he was out of his league you wouldn't be whimpering about him on the internet to get your partisan ocd out of your system at his expense, and he would have collapsed under the pressure of one of our Country's worst financial times ever but instead we're experiencing a period of market stability.

He's not a great President.

He's not out of his league. He's much more pragmatic and intelligent than, say - YOU; however, he does seem to have ideological ties that cause him to proceed with the Washington modus operandi.

 

[Jarhead]

incessantly repeating the same point on a message board is a sign of insecurity.

calling the leader of the free world out of his league - - - - - from the chair of a staffing agency is a sign of insecurity.

interesting...

Saying that a man with only a half a term as a junior senator is out of his league as it pertains to the presidency is a sign of insecurity?

Actually, not recognizing the possibility of that is a sign of immaturity.....or perhaps you are simply a victim of the Obama craze.

If he was out of his league you wouldn't be whimpering about him on the internet to get your partisan ocd out of your system at his expense, and he would have collapsed under the pressure of one of our Country's worst financial times ever but instead we're experiencing a period of market stability.

He's not a great President.

He's not out of his league. He's much more pragmatic and intelligent than, say - YOU; however, he does seem to have ideological ties that cause him to proceed with the Washington modus operandi.

whatever.

you are talking out of your ass.

 

[G.T.]

No, you just don't like it that I have no political axe to grind and I call out people that do.

It's a mental illness, and you live it every day. You also know it.

I'm here to help, for anyone that needs it.

 

[Jarhead]

[MENTION=19867]G.T.[/MENTION]

You really don't have a problem with this? Why not?

IRS suggests no more than 3 months

Progressive groups.....3 weeks to 3 months

Conservative groups....6 months to 3 years.

AND NO EXPLANATION AS TO WHY

Because I've heard the testimony in regard to it.

Applications went from roughly 1k to over 3400 in that office because of the citizens united decision, and so a bola list was created (which they admitted post haste was unethical, but I can understand as a sane minded person why it was done).

Of the uptic, there was a mass amount of tea party activist groups. there were close to 200, whereas groups with the name progressive in the name were 20 (off the top of my head) and usually "progressive," according to the IG report, was seen in a historical sense and not a political one, whereas "tea party" was a political movement born right when the recession began.

so when they say only "30%" of the groups with "progressive" in the title were held back for scrutiny, the 30% needs to be understood in the context of their only having been 20 total anyways and OUTside of that 20 with THAT name, there were OTHER names besides "Progressive" that were, in fact, targeted.


The reason for the time table it took to turn around the applications varied per testimony, ranging from IRS incompetence to the applicants mishandling of the paperwork themselves.

Of the sworn testimony, all (100%) of every employee under oath said that they had no political motivation but that the new regulations and understaffing were the underlying cause of the (unethical) scrutiny.




When it's called a "phony" scandal, phony is being used in the sense that it doesn't in any way shape or form point back to the Whitehouse itself, and never did. Issa was actually caught holding back transcripts from the media that lead away from the narrative, and became infuriated when Cummings decided to release it himself.

And the reason I answered now, and not before, is because I actually have a modicum of respect for the poster of which I'm responding.

nowhere does it explain this

IRS suggests no more than 3 months

Progressive groups.....3 weeks to 3 months

Conservative groups....6 months to 3 years

Unless it was strictly coincidental that the incompetence was levied on just the conservative groups.

And what made me realize there may actually be an issue?

When the senior democratic politicians started to talk about the progressive group that was denied as PROOF...

they were saying:

"See? Even progressive groups were targeted and one was denied"

Why were they saying that? The complaint was never about being audited....it was about THE TIME IT TOOK for conservative groups compared to progressive groups.

 

[Jarhead]

No, you just don't like it that I have no political axe to grind and I call out people that do.

It's a mental illness, and you live it every day. You also know it.

I'm here to help, for anyone that needs it.

there ya go again.

Name calling.

Insults.

Giving out information deemed as private.

Very childish and very desperate.

Must make you feel big. As is evident by your cute little "I am here to help"...

lmfao.

 

[G.T.]

No, actually it was both. The complaint was both.

The BOLA list was unethical.

If you have no percentages and with your 3 months 3 years, etc. bullshit, then you're not saying anything. There's a good place to start.

The tea party groups were being more heavily scrutinized because common sense was dictating that their mere existence was political in nature. It's not that hard, do you really need to think harder about it, or......?

There was no uptick of Progressive applications, the name progressive also was historical in nature as a precedent. Therefore, it was "business as usual" for these applicants.

And a few of the gentlemen who testified that it took the irs too long? Were found to have been withholding information.

There's no point in discussing this with someone with a preconceived conclusion and axe to grind. It's futile, your brain doesn't operate the same way that it would if you were judging something you're more objective about like - maybe sex toys. Creep.

 

[Jarhead]

And you know...what seems to be hidden away in this whole thing...

Leaders like Pelosi and Reid DEMONIZED the tea party. They did not simply disagree with them...they outright demonized them.

And then, all of a sudden, tea party groups are unable to get an answer on their status while progressive groups are getting through...some in record time.

Think about it.

 

[G.T.]

No, you just don't like it that I have no political axe to grind and I call out people that do.

It's a mental illness, and you live it every day. You also know it.

I'm here to help, for anyone that needs it.

there ya go again.

Name calling.

Insults.

Giving out information deemed as private.

Very childish and very desperate.

Must make you feel big. As is evident by your cute little "I am here to help"...

lmfao.

Private information?





Also - I am here to help, but realize, you do not command my respect. I see you as vile.

 

[Jarhead]

No, actually it was both. The complaint was both.

The BOLA list was unethical.

If you have no percentages and with your 3 months 3 years, etc. bullshit, then you're not saying anything. There's a good place to start.

The tea party groups were being more heavily scrutinized because common sense was dictating that their mere existence was political in nature. It's not that hard, do you really need to think harder about it, or......?

There was no uptick of Progressive applications, the name progressive also was historical in nature as a precedent. Therefore, it was "business as usual" for these applicants.

And a few of the gentlemen who testified that it took the irs too long? Were found to have been withholding information.

There's no point in discussing this with someone with a preconceived conclusion and axe to grind. It's futile, your brain doesn't operate the same way that it would if you were judging something you're more objective about like - maybe sex toys. Creep.

what the hell is your issue with sex GT?

Strop acting like a child.