Issa Lied? Say It Ain't So!

[The Rabbi]

Refuting Democratic suggestions that progressive groups were also swept up in the IRS probe of the tax status of Tea Party organizations, the Treasury Department’s inspector general has revealed that just six progressive groups were targeted compared to 292 conservative groups.

In a letter to congressional Democrats, the inspector general also said that 100 percent of Tea Party groups seeking special tax status were put under IRS review, while only 30 percent of the progressive groups felt the same pressure.

The Wednesday letter to the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee punched a huge hole in Democratic claims that progressive groups were targeted as much as the Tea Party groups from May 2010-May 2012, the height of the Tea Party movement.

The letter from the Treasury Department Inspector General for Tax Administration revealed that there just weren’t many progressive groups who even sought special tax exempt status. A total of 20 sought it, and six were probed. All 292 Tea Party groups, meanwhile, were part of the IRS witchhunt.

Treasury: IRS targeted 292 Tea Party groups, just 6 progressive groups | WashingtonExaminer.com

TIGTA Final Response to Rep. Levin

It is really awkward when your own links prove you wrong, isn't it?

From the IG's letter:

Your report states that TIGTA "reviewed all 298 applications that had been identifiedas potential political cases as of May 31, 2012." (See page 10 of your report.) Yourreport includes the following breakdown of the potential political cases byorganization name: (1) 96 were "Tea Party," "9/12," or "Patriots" organizations; and(2) 202 were "Other." Why did your report not identify that liberal organizations werealso included among the 298 applications you reviewed?

So, that's 96 groups, not 298.

You're not really terribly bright, are you? Try reading the quoted pieces again.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Treasury: IRS targeted 292 Tea Party groups, just 6 progressive groups | WashingtonExaminer.com

TIGTA Final Response to Rep. Levin

It is really awkward when your own links prove you wrong, isn't it?

From the IG's letter:

Your report states that TIGTA "reviewed all 298 applications that had been identifiedas potential political cases as of May 31, 2012." (See page 10 of your report.) Yourreport includes the following breakdown of the potential political cases byorganization name: (1) 96 were "Tea Party," "9/12," or "Patriots" organizations; and(2) 202 were "Other." Why did your report not identify that liberal organizations werealso included among the 298 applications you reviewed?

So, that's 96 groups, not 298.

You're not really terribly bright, are you? Try reading the quoted pieces again.

The Washington Examiner article claims that 298 "conservative" or "tea party" groups were investigated.

The IG's letter says that 96 groups were examined due to words like "tea party", "9/12" or "patriot", and 202 were examined due to "other".

The IG very specifically does not claim that those 202 "other" groups were "conservative", yet the Examiner article does.

I know. It's completely shocking.

 

[whitehall]

Whaddaya think the radical left "think progress"'s motivation is? Justice? Don't make me laugh about documents.

 

[The T]

Um, Howey, the reason people scream "Think Progress" is because they have a history of distortion and propaganda rivalled only by the Soviet Union. Of course most people with an IQ higher than a warm brownie can spot the issue. You do see the issue, right?

That's why I posted the documents from the IRS themselves. der...

Boy Howey, I'll bet you're thinking about some vanilla ice cream melting down your back about now....

And some nice fella licking it off...

 

[peach174]

Well, well....seems like the IRS targeted progressive groups more than it did tea party groups. When will Issa be impeached? (Sarcasm)

A series of IRS documents, provided to ThinkProgress under the Freedom of Information Act, appears to contradict the claims by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and his House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that only Tea Party organizations applying for tax-exempt status “received systematic scrutiny because of their political beliefs.” The 22 “Be On the Look Out” keywords lists, distributed to staff reviewing applications between August 12, 2010 and April 19, 2013, included more explicit references to progressive groups, ACORN successors, and medical marijuana organizations than to Tea Party entities

The IRS provided the heavily-redacted lists to ThinkProgress, after nearly a year-long search. From the earliest lists through 2012, the “historical” section of the lists encouraged reviewers to watch out for “progressive” groups with names like “blue,” as their requests for 501(c)(3) charitable status might be inappropriate. Their inclusion in this section suggests that the concern predates the initial 2010 list.

Explicit references to “Tea Party,” included in the “emerging issues” section of the lists, also began in August 2010 — but stopped appearing after the May 10, 2011 list. From that point on, the lists instructed agents to flag all political advocacy groups of any stripe. The documents instructed the agents to forward any “organization involved with political, lobbying, or advocacy” applying for 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) status be forwarded to “group 7822″ for additional review. Groups under both categories are limited in the amount of of lobbying and political activity each can undertake.
\
Other types of groups received explicit scrutiny for longer than “progressive” or “Tea Party” organizations. These included applicants involved with “medical marijuana” but not “exclusively education” (19 appearances in the “watch list” section of the lists), which were to be forwarded to a “group 7888″ and groups believed to be possible successor-groups to ACORN, the now-shuttered Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (12 appearances on the “watch list” section). Those applications were also to be elevated to managers for further review. All 22 documents also flagged applicants with Puerto Rico addresses and certain types of “Testamentary Trusts.”

Before Issa-Lovers start screaming "THINK PROGRESS!", I've include the documents from the IRS.

IRS Be On the Look Out docs | Scribd

All of the documents listed there at that site say redacted. Oops

If you had actually watched the hearings on c-span, which by the way you still can, you
would have already known about the left-wing groups. They were never heavily asked for the amounts of information that they did for the right-wing groups.
Most on the left had no more than 3 pages and some up to 10 pages of information.
On the right they wanted two to three binders full of information.
Most left-wing groups were accepted with in 3 years, while most of the right-wing groups still have not gotten theirs in over 5 years.
The e-mails from Lerner prove that they were targeted.

 

[The T]

Well, well....seems like the IRS targeted progressive groups more than it did tea party groups. When will Issa be impeached? (Sarcasm)

A series of IRS documents, provided to ThinkProgress under the Freedom of Information Act, appears to contradict the claims by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and his House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that only Tea Party organizations applying for tax-exempt status “received systematic scrutiny because of their political beliefs.” The 22 “Be On the Look Out” keywords lists, distributed to staff reviewing applications between August 12, 2010 and April 19, 2013, included more explicit references to progressive groups, ACORN successors, and medical marijuana organizations than to Tea Party entities

The IRS provided the heavily-redacted lists to ThinkProgress, after nearly a year-long search. From the earliest lists through 2012, the “historical” section of the lists encouraged reviewers to watch out for “progressive” groups with names like “blue,” as their requests for 501(c)(3) charitable status might be inappropriate. Their inclusion in this section suggests that the concern predates the initial 2010 list.

Explicit references to “Tea Party,” included in the “emerging issues” section of the lists, also began in August 2010 — but stopped appearing after the May 10, 2011 list. From that point on, the lists instructed agents to flag all political advocacy groups of any stripe. The documents instructed the agents to forward any “organization involved with political, lobbying, or advocacy” applying for 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) status be forwarded to “group 7822″ for additional review. Groups under both categories are limited in the amount of of lobbying and political activity each can undertake.
\
Other types of groups received explicit scrutiny for longer than “progressive” or “Tea Party” organizations. These included applicants involved with “medical marijuana” but not “exclusively education” (19 appearances in the “watch list” section of the lists), which were to be forwarded to a “group 7888″ and groups believed to be possible successor-groups to ACORN, the now-shuttered Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (12 appearances on the “watch list” section). Those applications were also to be elevated to managers for further review. All 22 documents also flagged applicants with Puerto Rico addresses and certain types of “Testamentary Trusts.”

Before Issa-Lovers start screaming "THINK PROGRESS!", I've include the documents from the IRS.

IRS Be On the Look Out docs | Scribd

If you had actually watched the hearings on c-span, which by the way you still can, you
would have already known about the left-wing groups. They were never heavily asked for the amounts of information that they did for the right-wing groups.
Most on the left had no more than 3 pages and some up to 10 pages of information.
On the right they wanted two to three binders full of information.
Most left-wing groups were accepted with in 3 years, while most of the right-wing groups still have not gotten theirs in over 5 years.
The e-mails from Lerner prove that they were targeted.

And you have Congresscritters directly involved conferring with the IRS to check certain TEA Party Groups out...

Elijah Cummings in particular...

 

[peach174]

When are the lefties ever going to learn that the left blogs and news, give a bias to; distort things to look good for the Dems?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is really awkward when your own links prove you wrong, isn't it?

From the IG's letter:



So, that's 96 groups, not 298.

You're not really terribly bright, are you? Try reading the quoted pieces again.

The Washington Examiner article claims that 298 "conservative" or "tea party" groups were investigated.

The IG's letter says that 96 groups were examined due to words like "tea party", "9/12" or "patriot", and 202 were examined due to "other".

The IG very specifically does not claim that those 202 "other" groups were "conservative", yet the Examiner article does.

I know. It's completely shocking.

Except that is not what the IG report says, that is what a Democratic Senator claims it says. This is what the IG said about that.

TIGTA did not make any characterizations of any organizations in its audit report asconservative or liberal and believes it would be inappropriate for a nonpartisanInspector General to make such judgments. Instead, our audit focused on the testing of 296
of the 298 potential political cases (two case files were incomplete) to determine if they were selected using the actual criteria that should have been usedby the IRS from the beginning to screen potential political cases. Those criteria were whether the specific applications had indications of significant amounts of political campaign intervention (a term used in Treasury's Regulations). For 69 percent of the 296 cases, TIGTA found that there were indications of significantpolitical campaign intervention, while 31 percent
of the cases did not have that evidence.
We also reviewed samples of 501(c)(4) cases that were not identified as potential political cases to determine if they should have been.
We estimate that more than 175 applications were not appropriately identified as potential political cases. TIGTA's audit report determined that certain cases were referred for potential political review because their names used terms in the IRS selection criteria. We could not tell why other organizations were selected for additional scrutiny because the IRS did not document specifically why the cases were forwarded to a team of specialists. TIGTA recommended that the IRS do so
in the future.

Don't let the truth stand in the way of your attempt to rewrite history though.

 

[The T]

When are the lefties ever going to learn that the left blogs and news, give a bias to; distort things to look good for the Dems?

Never...until an issue near and dear to them is foisted upon them...but by then it's too late...History isn't their friend. Truth hides in wait.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Truth hides in wait?

That sounds really stupid. Is that yours, or did you borrow that from another idiot?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Show me a questionnaire where the IRS asked for the content of a progressive groups prayers, then we will have a discussion. Or show me a progressive group that is still waiting for approval after more than 3 years. There were different levels of scrutiny, just asking routine questions is not targeting.

Once again you show the Liberals for what they are. They distort the truth. I mean Liberals have no problem lying So it wouldn't take much to fake numbers like this. Nice going!

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Where does the "IRS scandal" rank on the list of ridiculous nutter talking points? Does it go before or after Benghazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzi?

Let me know if you want the list.

Well maybe we'll see where you rank it when we turn the tables when we're in charge of the IRS.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Um, Howey, the reason people scream "Think Progress" is because they have a history of distortion and propaganda rivalled only by the Soviet Union. Of course most people with an IQ higher than a warm brownie can spot the issue. You do see the issue, right?

Nope. The reason is they shine light on slime like Issa.

If he tells the truth, THAT would be news.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You're not really terribly bright, are you? Try reading the quoted pieces again.

The Washington Examiner article claims that 298 "conservative" or "tea party" groups were investigated.

The IG's letter says that 96 groups were examined due to words like "tea party", "9/12" or "patriot", and 202 were examined due to "other".

The IG very specifically does not claim that those 202 "other" groups were "conservative", yet the Examiner article does.

I know. It's completely shocking.

Except that is not what the IG report says, that is what a Democratic Senator claims it says. This is what the IG said about that.

TIGTA did not make any characterizations of any organizations in its audit report asconservative or liberal and believes it would be inappropriate for a nonpartisanInspector General to make such judgments. Instead, our audit focused on the testing of 296
of the 298 potential political cases (two case files were incomplete) to determine if they were selected using the actual criteria that should have been usedby the IRS from the beginning to screen potential political cases. Those criteria were whether the specific applications had indications of significant amounts of political campaign intervention (a term used in Treasury's Regulations). For 69 percent of the 296 cases, TIGTA found that there were indications of significantpolitical campaign intervention, while 31 percent
of the cases did not have that evidence.
We also reviewed samples of 501(c)(4) cases that were not identified as potential political cases to determine if they should have been.
We estimate that more than 175 applications were not appropriately identified as potential political cases. TIGTA's audit report determined that certain cases were referred for potential political review because their names used terms in the IRS selection criteria. We could not tell why other organizations were selected for additional scrutiny because the IRS did not document specifically why the cases were forwarded to a team of specialists. TIGTA recommended that the IRS do so
in the future.

Don't let the truth stand in the way of your attempt to rewrite history though.

Well, that actually looks quite a bit like the IG is saying that they did NOT categorize any of the groups as "liberal" and "conservative".

The rest of it doesn't seem to have anything to do with what was asked.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

When are the lefties ever going to learn that the left blogs and news, give a bias to; distort things to look good for the Dems?

You're certainly free to post proof of your statement.

Like that would ever happen.

Actually, this is very typical of some rw's reactions to the truth. They simply shove their heads deeper in the sand and turn up of the volume on the lushbo show. That's a lot easier than actually thinking for yourselves, right?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Where does the "IRS scandal" rank on the list of ridiculous nutter talking points? Does it go before or after Benghazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzi?

Let me know if you want the list.

Well maybe we'll see where you rank it when we turn the tables when we're in charge of the IRS.

Say what? Who is we? And what is it that you propose to do?

 

[The T]

When are the lefties ever going to learn that the left blogs and news, give a bias to; distort things to look good for the Dems?

You're certainly free to post proof of your statement.

Like that would ever happen.

Actually, this is very typical of some rw's reactions to the truth. They simply shove their heads deeper in the sand and turn up of the volume on the lushbo show. That's a lot easier than actually thinking for yourselves, right?

Search the boards...like the rockgut shit YOU post from the SAME. Truth hurts, don't it?

 

[peach174]

Lois Lerner's e- mails.

Ms. Lerner specifically calls the tea party applications for tax-exempt status problematic.

“Tea Party Matter very dangerous,” Ms. Lerner wrote in the 2011 email, saying that those applications could end up being the “vehicle to go to court” to get more clarity on a 2010 Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance rules

 

[The T]

Lois Lerner's e- mails.

Ms. Lerner specifically calls the tea party applications for tax-exempt status problematic.

“Tea Party Matter very dangerous,” Ms. Lerner wrote in the 2011 email, saying that those applications could end up being the “vehicle to go to court” to get more clarity on a 2010 Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance rules

Denials in 3...2...1...

 

[peach174]

When are the lefties ever going to learn that the left blogs and news, give a bias to; distort things to look good for the Dems?

You're certainly free to post proof of your statement.

Like that would ever happen.

Actually, this is very typical of some rw's reactions to the truth. They simply shove their heads deeper in the sand and turn up of the volume on the lushbo show. That's a lot easier than actually thinking for yourselves, right?

I do it all the time Luddly, it's you who refuse to believe the facts and thinks that it's opinions and political talking points.