Meet the group the IRS actually denied: Democrats!

[JohnL.Burke]

Why are you playing this semantics game? OK, The Tea Party and pro-life groups weren't officially denied because they weren't given a chance to be denied or accepted. There applications were blocked in a myriad of ways such as asking inappropriate and invasive questions while creating more hoops to jump through. Conservative groups were treated differently than liberal groups. How can anyone defend this?

 

[hortysir]

It shows the left has as much to whine about as the right. More, in fact.

Oh yeah, a couple groups to how many of the Tea party and pro-life groups?

but of course you liberals would whine you about it..and poo poo the Tea Party as making a big deal out of nothing..

Which Tea party and pro-life groups were denied their 501c-4 status, amigo?

Give us the list of these aggrieved organizations, please.

Just a couple posts above yours, it's pointed out that it isn;t about being denied.

It's about be subjected to unreasonably longer waits and further questioning, based SOLELY on the key words "TEA Party" and "patriot".

Now, it's been admitted to, apologized for, and is now being investigated further.
Sit back and wait.

 

[Lakhota]

From the beginning of the IRS “scandal”, it seemed obvious to me that with conservative nonprofit groups outspending liberals by 34-1, their activities would be more prone to scrutiny. Add into that mix the fact that after Citizens United, these dark money groups sprang up in order to avoid disclosure of donors, the fact that many of these “tea party” groups were actually violating the rules of nonprofits by engaging in political activities, and this scandal looked more like preemptive pushback than a “targeting” scandal.

It seems some election lawyers agree. Over the holiday weekend, when almost no one was reading politics, the New York Times published an article based on their review of IRS agency planning documents. It turns out that “The I.R.S. is already separately reviewing roughly 300 tax-exempt groups that may have engaged in improper campaign activity in past years.”

Thus, “Some election lawyers said they believed a wave of lawsuits against the I.R.S. and intensifying Congressional criticism of its handling of applications were intended in part to derail those audits, giving political nonprofit organizations a freer hand during the 2014 campaign.”

The Times examined more than a dozen of the organizations seeking nonprofit status, and they appear to have earned this scrutiny the hard way, “… a close examination of these groups and others reveals an array of election activities that tax experts and former I.R.S. officials said would provide a legitimate basis for flagging them for closer review.”

More: Republicans Are Using the IRS Scandal to Hide Their Koch Fueled Shady Activities

Groups Targeted by I.R.S. Tested Rules on Politics - The New York Times

 

[tinydancer]

From the beginning of the IRS “scandal”, it seemed obvious to me that with conservative nonprofit groups outspending liberals by 34-1, their activities would be more prone to scrutiny. Add into that mix the fact that after Citizens United, these dark money groups sprang up in order to avoid disclosure of donors, the fact that many of these “tea party” groups were actually violating the rules of nonprofits by engaging in political activities, and this scandal looked more like preemptive pushback than a “targeting” scandal.

It seems some election lawyers agree. Over the holiday weekend, when almost no one was reading politics, the New York Times published an article based on their review of IRS agency planning documents. It turns out that “The I.R.S. is already separately reviewing roughly 300 tax-exempt groups that may have engaged in improper campaign activity in past years.”

Thus, “Some election lawyers said they believed a wave of lawsuits against the I.R.S. and intensifying Congressional criticism of its handling of applications were intended in part to derail those audits, giving political nonprofit organizations a freer hand during the 2014 campaign.”

The Times examined more than a dozen of the organizations seeking nonprofit status, and they appear to have earned this scrutiny the hard way, “… a close examination of these groups and others reveals an array of election activities that tax experts and former I.R.S. officials said would provide a legitimate basis for flagging them for closer review.”

More: Republicans Are Using the IRS Scandal to Hide Their Koch Fueled Shady Activities

Groups Targeted by I.R.S. Tested Rules on Politics - The New York Times

Whoa.

Trying to pull out all stops?Too funny. I just checked in at Mother Jones and TPM so I know what your talking points today are going to be.

Won't work here. Have to give you kudos because you keep trying. But you won't make a dent.

You know what little truths are going to keep screwing you up the ass on this Lakhota?

A pesky little thing called an Inspector General's Report on IRS that shows the wrong doing.

The IRS apologizing for wrong doing.

People from the IRS resigning over wrong doing.

Shall I continue on the "IRS said they know they did wrong BUT lakhota and other liberals didn't get the memo" meme?

 

[hortysir]

From the beginning of the IRS “scandal”, it seemed obvious to me that with conservative nonprofit groups outspending liberals by 34-1, their activities would be more prone to scrutiny. Add into that mix the fact that after Citizens United, these dark money groups sprang up in order to avoid disclosure of donors, the fact that many of these “tea party” groups were actually violating the rules of nonprofits by engaging in political activities, and this scandal looked more like preemptive pushback than a “targeting” scandal.

It seems some election lawyers agree. Over the holiday weekend, when almost no one was reading politics, the New York Times published an article based on their review of IRS agency planning documents. It turns out that “The I.R.S. is already separately reviewing roughly 300 tax-exempt groups that may have engaged in improper campaign activity in past years.”

Thus, “Some election lawyers said they believed a wave of lawsuits against the I.R.S. and intensifying Congressional criticism of its handling of applications were intended in part to derail those audits, giving political nonprofit organizations a freer hand during the 2014 campaign.”

The Times examined more than a dozen of the organizations seeking nonprofit status, and they appear to have earned this scrutiny the hard way, “… a close examination of these groups and others reveals an array of election activities that tax experts and former I.R.S. officials said would provide a legitimate basis for flagging them for closer review.”

More: Republicans Are Using the IRS Scandal to Hide Their Koch Fueled Shady Activities

Groups Targeted by I.R.S. Tested Rules on Politics - The New York Times

Whoa.

Trying to pull out all stops?Too funny. I just checked in at Mother Jones and TPM so I know what your talking points today are going to be.

Won't work here. Have to give you kudos because you keep trying. But you won't make a dent.

You know what little truths are going to keep screwing you up the ass on this Lakhota?

A pesky little thing called an Inspector General's Report on IRS that shows the wrong doing.

The IRS apologizing for wrong doing.

People from the IRS resigning over wrong doing.

Shall I continue on the "IRS said they know they did wrong BUT lakhota and other liberals didn't get the memo" meme?

...also the President saying he was outraged and that American ALL should be outraged too

 

[Lakhota]

Bottom line: Only Democrats were denied.

 

[tinydancer]

Dragging back your bullshit thread again? Too funny.

Only whacked out libs can't accept the findings of the Inspector General of the Treasury Department.

 

[Lakhota]

Dragging back your bullshit thread again? Too funny.

Only whacked out libs can't accept the findings of the Inspector General of the Treasury Department.

I can accept his findings. Can you?

PolitiFact | Sander Levin says IRS's inspector general said there was 'no political motivation' and 'no outside influence' to target tea party groups

 

[jon_berzerk]

Bottom line: Only Democrats were denied.

the democrats could not produce one

for yesterdays hearing

 

[Lakhota]

Three nonprofit advocacy groups that were denied tax exemption by the Internal Revenue Service were all units of Emerge America, an organization devoted to cultivating female political leaders for local, state and federal government.

The I.R.S. denied tax exemption to the groups — Emerge Nevada, Emerge Maine and Emerge Massachusetts — because, the agency wrote in denial letters, they were set up specifically to cultivate Democratic candidates. Their Web sites ask for evidence that participants in their training programs are Democrats.

3 Groups Denied Break by I.R.S. Are Named - The New York Times

 

[tinydancer]

Dragging back your bullshit thread again? Too funny.

Only whacked out libs can't accept the findings of the Inspector General of the Treasury Department.

I can accept his findings. Can you?

PolitiFact | Sander Levin says IRS's inspector general said there was 'no political motivation' and 'no outside influence' to target tea party groups

You didn't read the article all the way thru did you? You were just taking Levin's interpretation of the testimony. This was his testimony based solely on the audit.

Here's the key:

Rep. Tim Griffin, R-Ark., pointed out that day that George’s office had conducted an audit, but not yet an investigation.

"There's a reason you don't know who came up with this. You didn't investigate that," he said.

Notice how the testimony always includes "not at this time"

Inspector general

Since the audit, lawmakers have repeatedly brought in the Treasury inspector general for tax administration, J. Russell George, to testify about the findings of his auditors.

Levin’s staff pointed us to this exchange before Ways and Means, when the congressman asked George to clarify the audit’s results on outside influence and political motivation:

Levin: On page 7, Mr. George, of the IG report it states and "all of these individuals stated that the criteria were not influenced by any individual or organization outside the IRS." Is that correct?

George: That is the information we received, correct.

Levin: Did you find any evidence of political motivation in the selection of the tax exemption applications?

George: We did not, sir.

It’s important to note that George is careful to say that information gathered during the audit didn’t point to outside influence or political motivation — not that he was certain it had been ruled out.

He was similarly careful in his responses that day to Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., and later, Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis.:

McDermott: The inspector general report says that no one acted out of malice or political motivation. Mr. George, I want to know, do you still stand by that?

George: We have no evidence at this time to contradict that assertion, sir. ...



Kind: "According to your report, you found no bias or partisanship behind the development and the use of the criteria for selecting applications in the Cincinnati office. Is that right?

George: That is correct, sir, but we did find gross mismanagement in the overall —

Kind: Right. And that's clear in your report, too. Did you find any evidence that anyone outside of the IRS was involved in the development and review of —

George: Not at this time, sir.

Kind: Not the White House or Treasury?

George: That's correct, sir.


Not at this time. Not at this time. AND not at this time. Over and over.

PolitiFact | Sander Levin says IRS?s inspector general said there was ?no political motivation? and ?no outside influence? to target tea party groups

And since that testimony so much else has happened including the new IRS Chief apologizing for the partisan targeting.