IRS targeted conservatives as early as 2010: WSJ; Update: ABC corroborates

posted at 9:21 am on May 13, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

On Saturday, we discovered that the IRS targeting of conservative groups didn’t start in 2012 and wasn’t limited to a few rogue low-level agents.  Senior officials became aware of the practice at least as early as June 2011, including the top lawyer for the IRS.  Today, the Wall Street Journal and Reuters report that an upcoming IG report will show that the practice first began in the 2010 midterm cycle (via TPM):

But questions continued to swirl about the failure of IRS officials to disclose the problems until the inspector general’s report was about to become public.

The timeline contained in the draft report indicates that IRS scrutiny of tea-party and other conservative groups began as early as 2010 and came to the attention of Ms. Lerner, the head of the tax-exempt-organizations division, at least by the following year.

The report’s timeline indicates that the criteria were changed to be more neutral in July 2011 after Ms. Lerner “raised concerns.” The criteria for heightened scrutiny continued to evolve over the next year or so, even as complaints from tea-party groups—and questions from GOP lawmakers—mounted over IRS inquiries to various groups about their activities.

Lerner seems to have deliberately misled Congress, which was demanding answers after receiving a raft of complaints about aggressive IRS agents:

Letters from Ms. Lerner in April and May 2012 responding to questions by Republican lawmakers made no mention of the problems that had surfaced in the IRS unit.

According to the draft report, on April 24 and 25 of last year, officials in Ms. Lerner’s office were reviewing “troubling questions” that had been asked of organizations, including “the names of donors.”

One way the IRS attempted to throw people off the trail was by subtly changing their search criteria.  They started off by looking at Tea Party groups, but then expanded to any group unhappy with the administration’s performance:

When tax agents started singling out non-profit groups for extra scrutiny in 2010, they looked at first only for key words such as ‘Tea Party,’ but later they focused on criticisms by groups of “how the country is being run,” according to investigative findings reviewed by Reuters on Sunday.

Over two years, IRS field office agents repeatedly changed their criteria while sifting through thousands of applications from groups seeking tax-exempt status to select ones for possible closer examination, the findings showed.

At one point, the agents chose to screen applications from groups focused on making “America a better place to live.”

Who knew that motive was so sinister? Does the IRS want America to be a worse place to live?  If so, they’re well on their way with this scandal.

Reuters mentions Friday’s announcement ahead of the report:

After brewing for months, the IRS effort exploded into wider view on Friday when Lois Lerner, director of exempt organizations for the IRS, apologized for what she called the “inappropriate” targeting of conservative groups for closer scrutiny, something the agency had long denied.

At a legal conference in Washington, while taking questions from the audience, Lerner said the agency was sorry.

She said the screening practice was confined to an IRS office in Cincinnati; that it was “absolutely not” influenced by the Obama administration; and that none of the targeted groups was denied tax-free status.

In retrospect, this looks like a strategy to spin the report ahead of its release. Rather than wait for the results to drop like a bombshell in the media, the IRS sent Lerner out for damage control, admitting to as little as possible while sounding as though the agency was taking responsibility for their errors.  That way, when the report did come out, the media could proclaim it “old news,” taking a page from Jay Carney’s Benghazi scandal strategy, and castigate anyone demanding more answers and drawing the obvious conclusion that the Obama administration has politicized the IRS.

Unfortunately, that strategy didn’t work very well.  Lerner turned out to be a very poor choice for that job, bungling the media handling badly enough that the media ended up more annoyed than mollified.  Mostly, though, this is news that’s just not spinnable.  The report now appears to implicate the highest levels of the IRS in either misleading or outright lying to Congress, and raises questions about how exactly this effort got put into place at all.  They basically threw gasoline on a fire that would have exploded anyway, making the conflagration even more eye-catching as a result.

Update: The New York Times’ headline focuses on the real scandal — “I.R.S. Focus on Conservatives Gives G.O.P. an Issue to Seize On”.  If you pay for the subscription, presumably you get the audio of the Gray Lady weeping over this blow.

Update: Jon Karl also reported this morning that it’s been going on for three years:

ABC News has obtained a draft of a soon-to-be-released investigative reporting showing that the Internal Revenue Service began targeting conservative groups as far back as 2010 and that senior IRS officials in Washington have known about it for almost two years. Last week, we learned that the IRS was targeting groups with “tea party” or “patriot” in their names, but it goes beyond that, ABC’s JONATHAN KARL reports. The draft report, conducted by the IRS’s internal watchdog, says the agency was tracking groups who’s goals included, quote “limiting government” and “educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights” and that, “criticize how the country is being run.” Friday, the White House says it had it no idea the IRS was targeting Tea Party-allied groups.

That little game Lerner played isn’t fooling anyone. This is going to get very ugly very quickly. Here’s the question, though — can anyone put any reliance on this Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute this corruption? I think we’re heading into special prosecutor territory.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I’m sure that the government’s internet surveillance capabilities would never use it to profile, er, track people who visit conservative sites that talk about ” “limiting government” and “educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights” and that, “criticize how the country is being run.” Never. /

scalleywag on May 13, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Resist We Much on May 13, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Exactly. We either root this out, totally, or we are resigned to life under a dictatorship.

They will never get me to shut up and sit down.

tngmv on May 13, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Dude this is chilling. Seriously chilling.

I have goose bumps and not the good kind.

gophergirl on May 13, 2013 at 10:06 AM

This is a red herring folks. Yes it is a scandal. And yes heads again will roll (pick two flunkies and fire them…that’s how they do it in this administration).

But this effectively takes Hillary and Benghazi off page 1, something the MSM and the Clintons desperately need done soon.

dirtseller on May 13, 2013 at 9:25 AM

Michele Bachmann has basically said the same thing herself. I’m not sure I agree. If that was the administration’s aim it was a tragic miscalculation. It doesn’t take Benghazi off of page 1. MSM bias takes it off of page 1 because they never had it there to begin with.

What it does do is compound the already horrible month that the administration is already having. With the MSM filter, the individual scandals have diminished impact, but an overall air of a weak administration in disarray will get this fool lame-ducking sooner and sooner.

That’s what Barry needs the absolute least short-term… because getting lame-ducked by the overall stench of failure reaching the masses is what will enable those individual scandals to have heavier impact mid and long-term, and that could bring down the whole administration.

Gingotts on May 13, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Wouldn’t surprise me if this coming up now had nothing to do with the Administration and everything to do with Bill and Hillary. Like I said, this takes HILLARY off the front page because she has nothing to do with the IRS. Sure it makes the Administration look even worse then it already did, but do you think the Clintons care about that? They are no longer part of the Administration and remember “Just a few years ago he’d be getting us our drinks.”

dirtseller on May 13, 2013 at 10:01 AM

Good point, but at the same time ask yourself who has the most to gain from the destruction of Hillary re Benghazi? The answer -Joke Biden and John F’n Kerry, who must agonize daily over talk of Hillary’s inevitability. They both want the big spot desperately. They could end up as deep throats re Benghazi.

slickwillie2001 on May 13, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Snap out of it. This is a wag the dog event, distracting from Hillary and Barack’s bungling of Benghazi.

BobMbx on May 13, 2013 at 10:04 AM

I doubt it. I agree with Doughboy that this is far more damaging to the Obama administration than Benghazi. Benghazi was some foreign place nobody cared about. This, on the other hand, is much more likely to resonate with the public.

As I said earlier, it’s possible that if Obama’s impeached, Hillary might be able to escape the consequences of Benghazi. But if Obama fires some low level people Friday and the scandal is declared “over,” then the Republicans will just go right back to Benghazi.

Doomberg on May 13, 2013 at 10:07 AM

You know, the IRS and our government only work because the populace voluntarily goes along with things like taxation. There is a tipping point where the public will not willingly go along with taxation because the IRS has no credibility. So what would the rat-eared bastard and his party do then?

Lois Lerner is a dead partisan whore walking this morning because the administration has to offer up somebody very quickly.

Happy Nomad on May 13, 2013 at 9:56 AM

My point is that, if you are going to worry about speaking out because you might get audited, what will you do when the IRS has a say in your healthcare?

This is the reason why all totalitarian governments have always sought to control healthcare and food. It facilitates obedience.

Resist We Much on May 13, 2013 at 10:07 AM

What I’ve read exposed as to those Obama and associates defines as “enemies”: patriots, teapartiers, the GOP, people/sites/organizations that teach “the Constitution,” military vets, gun owners, “Bible thumpers,”….

…sounds like Obama’s Saddam Hussein or something.

Lourdes on May 13, 2013 at 10:07 AM

i hope huckbee is right.

phatfawzi on May 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM

This is the reason I will make no political comments on Facebook or even Like a political status that someone else posts. No sense in drawing attention to yourself and risking getting an IRS audit. Drudge has a headline stating that Facebook and even private emails are not safe from FBI surveillance. Why post something on a public site and risk blowback from the government?

CBP on May 13, 2013 at 9:29 AM

Already happening! I have two close friends that were posting constantly, joined Tea Party groups, and would blast emails. Both are now being audited for their past 2 years. They have had the same jobs, and businesses for 25 years and had never been audited. And let me tell you, I have never before known anyone being audited, and the IRS is vicious! They have so much power and try to question EVERYTHING! It is like an anal exam. It honestly scares the he!! out of you.

I would love to know how many individuals are being audited that have been more public about their political conservatism. No more free speech for Americans. I feel like the frog in the water and I fear that the pot is already boiling and we can’t get out!

texgal on May 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM

“I.R.S. Focus on Conservatives Gives G.O.P. an Issue to Seize On”

I called that very headline, last week. You can give low information journalism serving the lowest of low information people credit for one thing. They’re 100% predictable.

MNHawk on May 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM

It is, but it’s only worse for Obama. Hillary’s hands will be completely clean and even should Obama be impeached and removed from office, Biden will be there to act as a caretaker until 2016 when Hillary can (presumably) sweep to power. I will say that if this thing really explodes Hillary might be able to escape the consequences of Benghazi if there’s a year-long impeachment against Obama or some other, drawn-out affair.

Doomberg on May 13, 2013 at 10:04 AM

Yeah, but Benghazi ain’t going away. That’s the slow-burning scandal that dogs this administration(and Hillary) until the truth finally comes out. The IRS story is an atomic bomb that drops on Obama and the Dems(and their sycophants in the media) out of nowhere.

I think in this instance, there’s no Wag the Dog scenario going on here. I honestly believe this story just broke when it did and wasn’t thrown out there as a distraction by anyone.

Doughboy on May 13, 2013 at 10:09 AM

White House leaked the IRS story early to divert attention from Benghazi Hearings…

Chuck Todd seems to think the IRS story is bigger.

workingclass artist on May 13, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean the government isn’t out to get you.

myiq2xu on May 13, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Are we entering a new phase of history?

Is the facade of lies and deceptions finally beginning to crack?

Is the the beginning of The Obama Disambiguation?

Not holding my breath, but I said it before. This guy is nothing but facade. What little remains beyond the lies is repulsive. If the facade cracks and what lies beneath is revealed, the entire con collapses. The consequences of public opinion turning on him could be powerful.

His policies aren’t that popular. He survives on personal approval and popularity. If he loses that, he is finished. He might remain in office, but he will be unable to do anything significant.

novaculus on May 13, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Meanwhile, Bill Ayers, admitted terrorist — responsible for the deaths of Americans — named big-wig teacher o’ decade or something and is keenly involved in the contents and goals of Common Core through DoE and other Democrat handlers.

We’ve been had by Communists.

Lourdes on May 13, 2013 at 10:11 AM

I’m sure that the government’s internet surveillance capabilities would never use it to profile, er, track people who visit conservative sites that talk about ” “limiting government” and “educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights” and that, “criticize how the country is being run.” Never. /

scalleywag on May 13, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Aye, remember this?

IRS Tells Agents it Can Snoop on Emails Without Warrant

slickwillie2001 on May 13, 2013 at 10:11 AM

I was drug into Facebook kicking and screaming (by myself), but have found it handy to communicate with friends. Still do not want to publicly leave a record of my views that gets stored in cyberspace. I will, however speak to others about politics on a one to one basis though.

CBP on May 13, 2013 at 10:00 AM

The government is monitoring and storing much more than just what you write on Facebook.

What you write here is being monitored.

Don’t forget that the IRS recently claimed that it has the authority to read and store your emails without a warrant.

Resist We Much on May 13, 2013 at 10:11 AM

White House leaked the IRS story early to divert attention from Benghazi Hearings…

Chuck Todd seems to think the IRS story is bigger.

workingclass artist on May 13, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Both issues are big. Neither is smaller than the other. Both issues independently are impeachable ‘events’ and together, same times two.

Lourdes on May 13, 2013 at 10:14 AM

What did the president know and when did he know it.

vcferlita on May 13, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Good point, but at the same time ask yourself who has the most to gain from the destruction of Hillary re Benghazi? The answer -Joke Biden and John F’n Kerry, who must agonize daily over talk of Hillary’s inevitability. They both want the big spot desperately. They could end up as deep throats re Benghazi.

slickwillie2001 on May 13, 2013 at 10:07 AM

I still say Hillary underestimates Biden at her own risk. He’s very well positioned for the nomination, historically, and you’re indeed correct that he desperately wants it.

Good news for us is history also tells us that he’s in great position for the nomination, but unlikely to win the general election. In that case it only boils down to whether we still have the same electoral system we had in all of those historical examples, or whether Venezuela is a more appropriate guideline for the future… Let’s see if all this does indeed tarnish the administration as should be expected, or if the MSM somehow manages to sweep it all under the rug abnormally quickly.

Gingotts on May 13, 2013 at 10:14 AM

As I said earlier, it’s possible that if Obama’s impeached, Hillary might be able to escape the consequences of Benghazi. But if Obama fires some low level people Friday and the scandal is declared “over,” then the Republicans will just go right back to Benghazi.

Doomberg on May 13, 2013 at 10:07 AM

The reaction of Dear Leader on this topic leads me to believe he really has nothing to do with it, he knows it, and can’t wait to sacrifice a bunch of worker-bees, all in an effort to get Benghazi off the front page.

If he had any connection to this, we’d have never heard about it. To be honest, that “Deep Background” press meeting was the release of this story, and had nothing to do with Benghazi.

“We’re going to use this IRS kerfuffle to bury the Benghazi story. All of you have a free hand in your reporting; the WH encourages 24/7 coverage and major flaming “Breaking News” banners during peak TV hours. Whatever you want to know, just ask; Eric will do what he can to provide you any information you need or want.

Oh, there is to be no reporting or suggesting a connection between this and the release of Romneys’ tax information…got it?”

BobMbx on May 13, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Obama is no Nixon
Bernstein

Idiot

cmsinaz on May 13, 2013 at 10:15 AM

This has the opportunity to become a really big scandal. Think of the one thing that all Americans fear the most in government — it’s the IRS. From the low information voter to your average soccer mom, nothing sends chills down the back like the word “IRS audit”. So, when it gets out that the IRS had specifically targeted people and possibly those of a specific political persuasion, this is going to have some legs. Now, if the Republicans were smart [yeah, let's just pretend for a moment], they would sieze on this and start running ads or pressers asking the questions, “What if someone in the government decided that all people who support Planned Parenthood should be subject to a tax audit, just to make sure that they were complying with the law of course? The current administration condoned the targeting of specific political views for audit and additional scrutiny”. A few weeks of hammering this theme and the White House will be under siege.

AZfederalist on May 13, 2013 at 10:15 AM

I the immortal words of Joe Biden: This is a big f’ing deal!

We need to organize mass protests in front of IRS offices. We can’t let the MSM cover this up.

bitsy on May 13, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Yo! Where da trolls?

katy the mean old lady on May 13, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Why Cincinnati? Is that where all tax-exempt applications go? If not, then how many could’ve been flagged there?

If it is where all these applications go for approval, then the notion by the IRS that only Cincinnati was involved seems misleading.

If not, then it would seem odd that only those applications fielded and scrutinized by the Cincinnati office (Was Ohio a hotbed for new Tea Party groups in 2010?) would draw Congressional attention.

BKeyser on May 13, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Yes, all applications for tax-exempt status are routed and processed through the IRS office in Cincinnati. The initial reporting about this story was deliberately misleading, to try to pass this off as nothing more than a handful of rogue agents in some podunk field office maybe getting a little eager to exercise their power.

Even in the so-called “apology,” they were laying down the first part of the spin, and naturally the media once again willingly carried their water. Yeah, shocking, I know.

Gator Country on May 13, 2013 at 10:18 AM

The only real way out for Hillary (and would be the nuke fight of the century to watch) is if she came out ahead of all of this and blamed Obama directly.

Mountains and mountains of popcorn.

Darksean on May 13, 2013 at 10:19 AM

Michele Bachmann has basically said the same thing herself. I’m not sure I agree. If that was the administration’s aim it was a tragic miscalculation…

Gingotts on May 13, 2013 at 10:07 AM

I don’t think the administration has anything to do with the release of this information. This was all Clinton.

Think about it. When was the last time this administration voluntarily provided this type of damning information about any of its departments? If you said never…go to the head of the class.

So why did it come out…and why now? Was anyone in the media investigating this? I don’t think so.

The timing, the fact that Hillary can in no way be tied to this, the fact that Biden (possibly her chief rival to the nomination…OMG…) is still in the administration.

Too many coincidences.

dirtseller on May 13, 2013 at 10:19 AM

slickwillie2001 on May 13, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Resist We Much on May 13, 2013 at 10:11 AM

I don’t lose sleep over the intrusion, but I detest that it’s there. And the beauty of their plan is that anyone who objects to this intrusion, infringement, can be labeled as someone who worries about
“limiting government” and “educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights” and is therefore subject to that type of surveillance. It’s ingenious, as well as despicable and a violation of “shhhh”.

scalleywag on May 13, 2013 at 10:19 AM

From one of Ed M.’s earlier posts, this as reference:

Update: How big of a deal is abusing the tax system to gain an advantage over the political opposition? Don’t forget that it was one of the charges in the Watergate articles of impeachment:

Article 2

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.

This conduct has included one or more of the following:

He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner

.

Lourdes on May 13, 2013 at 10:20 AM

The government is monitoring and storing much more than just what you write on Facebook.

What you write here is being monitored.

Don’t forget that the IRS recently claimed that it has the authority to read and store your emails without a warrant.

Resist We Much on May 13, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Private citizens who use their real name around the Internet just seem crazy to me. I don’t get it. Maybe it’s because I first got online in the ’90s when such things were strongly advised against by AOL help or whatever. Don’t know what makes people think that they should value their own privacy less than they did 15 years ago.

I had my Facebook settings locked tight, and limited only to actual friends (a couple dozen, not the hundreds most people have.) when I first went on. It didn’t take me long to get queasy even with that and give it up completely. Won’t touch the place now.

Gingotts on May 13, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Too bad Breitbart is gone…

PatriotRider on May 13, 2013 at 9:38 AM

To the contrary, Mark Levin’s group pushing this using awesome Breitbart-like tactics just proves that:

“Breitbart is here.”

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 13, 2013 at 10:22 AM

A little over a year ago, I reported that, ”It is likely that someone at the Internal Revenue Service illegally leaked confidential donor information showing a contribution from Mitt Romney’s political action committee to the National Organization for Marriage, says the group.”

Now — on the heels of news the IRS’s apology for having targeted conservative groups — NOM is renewing their demand that the Internal Revenue Service reveal the identity of the people responsible.

“There is little question that one or more employees at the IRS stole our confidential tax return and leaked it to our political enemies, in violation of federal law,” said NOM’s president Brian Brow, in a prepared statement. “The only questions are who did it, and whether there was any knowledge or coordination between people in the White House, the Obama reelection campaign and the Human Rights Campaign. We and the American people deserve answers.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/13/the-irs-admits-to-targeting-conservative-groups-but-were-they-also-leaking/#ixzz2TBNqpl3d

ted c on May 13, 2013 at 10:23 AM

I detest that it’s there. And the beauty of their plan is that anyone who objects to this intrusion, infringement, can be labeled as someone who worries about
“limiting government” and “educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights” and is therefore subject to that type of surveillance. It’s ingenious, as well as despicable and a violation of “shhhh”.

scalleywag on May 13, 2013 at 10:19 AM


“limiting government” and “educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights” and is therefore subject to that type of surveillance.

The thing that concerns and disgusts me is that those issues would be — and are with current admin — concerning to a point of suspicion to a President.

Lourdes on May 13, 2013 at 10:24 AM

dirtseller on May 13, 2013 at 10:19 AM

Now that in fact is worth fair consideration. Would be very much like Bubba. I still see it as a miscalculation. If that were his aim it would have been better to let Benghazi play out, Hillary take some heat, and have it die down with MSM help. Only then, after all that, release this stuff sometime after the midterms. As I said, right now it compounds and could dangerously snowball. If it brings down the administration, it doesn’t matter if Hillary’s individual load is light. 2016 won’t be a Democrat year, even if she can somehow snowjob people into thinking she’s an “outsider.”

Time the release differently as I said, then it’s more likely that she weathers it out, and low-info masses only remember the latest scandal. She got away with “what difference does it make” after all. We shred her on it, but the low-infos still trust her.

Gingotts on May 13, 2013 at 10:26 AM

The government is monitoring and storing much more than just what you write on Facebook.

What you write here is being monitored.

Don’t forget that the IRS recently claimed that it has the authority to read and store your emails without a warrant.

Resist We Much on May 13, 2013 at 10:11 AM

I’m not too worried about being tracked, although I realize it can happen. But I am careful about what I post and where. Personally, I keep things close to my chest anyway, so caution is just a reflection of who I am. Doesn’t matter which side you are on though, our Freedom of Speech is important and Americans should not be worried about what we say. But this story about the IRS harassing political groups should have all people concerned.

CBP on May 13, 2013 at 10:28 AM

Effect on 2014 and 2016 elections will be 0. Because the low information voters don’t pay income tax anyway. So they will this disregard this story.

SunSword on May 13, 2013 at 10:28 AM

Chuck Todd seems to think the IRS story is bigger.

workingclass artist on May 13, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Because it is. The low informations don’t know much about this Ben guy but they do understand the IRS.

Happy Nomad on May 13, 2013 at 10:31 AM

SunSword on May 13, 2013 at 10:28 AM

Besides, the LIVs think this sort of thing is exactly what needs to be done, after all, conservatives are the enemy and the IRS is punishing them as directed by BHO, yeehaw!

BobMbx on May 13, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Anyone who gives their health information to the IRS after this is insane. They won’t be getting it from me that’s for sure and I won’t be paying the penalty either. Thanks to the Oblowme economy have I no assets left to seize, so they can kiss my old and decrepit white azz. I’ve told my kids, Thank God I’m on my way out, not on my way in. I cry for my grandkids though.

BeachBum on May 13, 2013 at 10:33 AM

this is totally the best way to install hillary in 2016. Get the worst out in 2013, make the Dems pay for it in 2014, win the presidency in 2016 by running against the congress. It’s 2010 redux.

ted c on May 13, 2013 at 10:34 AM

If it brings down the administration, it doesn’t matter if Hillary’s individual load is light. 2016 won’t be a Democrat year, even if she can somehow snowjob people into thinking she’s an “outsider.”

Gingotts on May 13, 2013 at 10:26 AM

The thing is, though, Hillary is (questionably) the most popular politician in the country. The GOP will also have to put a candidate against her in 2016, and it’s questionable whether we have anyone else than can counter her enormous popularity advantage. If the Republican party remains divided, she might well win anyway.

Doomberg on May 13, 2013 at 10:34 AM

That little game Lerner played isn’t fooling anyone.

Yes, it is.

This is going to get very ugly very quickly.

No, it isn’t.

Here’s the question, though — can anyone put any reliance on this Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute this corruption?

Kind of a silly question, given the previous 2 statements. They already contradict each other, now this contradicts yet again.

I think we’re heading into special prosecutor territory.

Oh please. Again, see the previous statement. Do you know who has to appoint/approve the appointment of such a special prosecutor? Never gonna happen. And you know it. Why even suggest it will happen?

runawayyyy on May 13, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Anyone who gives their health information to the IRS after this is insane. They won’t be getting it from me that’s for sure and I won’t be paying the penalty either. Thanks to the Oblowme economy have I no assets left to seize, so they can kiss my old and decrepit white azz. I’ve told my kids, Thank God I’m on my way out, not on my way in. I cry for my grandkids though.

BeachBum on May 13, 2013 at 10:33 AM

Ypu don’t understand: it’s not you, it’s not patients, who are or are not giving their information to the IRS, it’s physicians who are, it’s now their method of recording medical records, they’re all going “online” such that medical records are, can be, pored over by other federal, state organizations and individuals.

Lourdes on May 13, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Chuck Todd seems to think the IRS story is bigger.

workingclass artist on May 13, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Probably because Presidents have, historically, been given a wide berth on foreign policy and its disasters, but using the IRS as a weapon was one of the Articles of Impeachment against Richard Nixon. It is easy to understand and hard to defend. Unlike Benghazi, the ‘fog of war’ defence doesn’t fly.

Resist We Much on May 13, 2013 at 10:40 AM

Effect on 2014 and 2016 elections will be 0. Because the low information voters don’t pay income tax anyway. So they will this disregard this story.

SunSword on May 13, 2013 at 10:28 AM

..what I was thinking, too.

Lourdes on May 13, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Lourdes on May 13, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Well, seeing as I don’t have health insurance and haven’t been to a doctor in over 20 years, I don’t think they have any data on me.

BeachBum on May 13, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Change.

visions on May 13, 2013 at 10:45 AM

I also want to point out that when the GM bailout occurred the Obama administration targeted dealerships owned by Republicans and left the Dem owned dealerships alone.

I sense a pattern.

neyney on May 13, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Update: The New York Times’ headline focuses on the real scandal — “I.R.S. Focus on Conservatives Gives G.O.P. an Issue to Seize On”.

Yep. To the MSM, once an Obama Regime scandal is no longer fully ignorable, the only newsworthy aspect of it is the assertion that the GOP is using it for political gains.

Funny how Watergate was A National Tragedy and the MSM offered no reporting at all on how the Dems were using to reap political gains. Different times, I guess.

Cicero43 on May 13, 2013 at 10:47 AM

I also want to point out that when the GM bailout occurred the Obama administration targeted dealerships owned by Republicans and left the Dem owned dealerships alone.

I sense a pattern.

neyney on May 13, 2013 at 10:46 AM

“Punish our enemies” – Obama

visions on May 13, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Once again, he acts like he has no role in this. He should be firing people and not expect someone else to take ‘swift and appropriate steps to address misconduct.’ That’s what an executive does…especially one that is offended by unconstitutional, illegal, unethical, immoral, and UN-AMERICAN behaviour.

Resist We Much on May 13, 2013 at 9:33 AM

But that would be leadership, and we can’t have that now, can we?

bigmacdaddy on May 13, 2013 at 10:48 AM

This could be like Capone, Obama submarined by the IRS!

Not Benghazi, Fast & Furious or the phone book of other crimes he has knowingly put in motion through his office…

Who is in charge of the cocktails around here, I need something to go with my canapes… :)

Tilly on May 13, 2013 at 10:49 AM

On the “up side” of this, I think this is going to give the folks in Tea Parties a boast. These folks are not your normal protesters, they have or want jobs, and families and standing around holding signs really doesn’t appeal to them. Thank you Obama and IRS, this should be really good for the midterms.

Cindy Munford on May 13, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Anyone who gives their health information to the IRS after this is insane. They won’t be getting it from me that’s for sure and I won’t be paying the penalty either. Thanks to the Oblowme economy have I no assets left to seize, so they can kiss my old and decrepit white azz. I’ve told my kids, Thank God I’m on my way out, not on my way in. I cry for my grandkids though.

BeachBum on May 13, 2013 at 10:33 AM

You don’t understand: it’s not you, it’s not patients, who are or are not giving their information to the IRS, it’s physicians who are, it’s now their method of recording medical records, they’re all going “online” such that medical records are, can be, pored over by other federal, state organizations and individuals.

Lourdes on May 13, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Correct. The IRS will have access to the same systems that the nurses in the doctor’s office use. No ‘giving’ involved. Per Obamacare they also have access to all of your financial accounts, -retirement, investment, bank, credit union, etc.

slickwillie2001 on May 13, 2013 at 10:53 AM

the only time that this administration deals responsibility to someone at the top of the heap is if George Bush happened to have appointed them. If Obama appoints them, then, the low level flunkies get it in the neck. natch.

ted c on May 13, 2013 at 10:53 AM

That way, when the report did come out, the media could proclaim it “old news,” taking a page from Jay Carney’s Benghazi scandal strategy, and castigate anyone demanding more answers and drawing the obvious conclusion that the Obama administration has politicized the IRS.

Before you can make that claim, you need to determine whether, at the very least, political appointees were involved. Ms. Lerner joined the IRS in 2001, so by your logic George Bush might be partly to blame for her behavior.
The federal government is filled with career employees with no allegiance to any political party or single administration. To correlate a cultural change in the IRS with a misguided policy instigated by some career employees is a very far stretch.

bayam on May 13, 2013 at 10:54 AM

The thing is, though, Hillary is (questionably) the most popular politician in the country. The GOP will also have to put a candidate against her in 2016, and it’s questionable whether we have anyone else than can counter her enormous popularity advantage. If the Republican party remains divided, she might well win anyway.

Doomberg on May 13, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Depends on how bad this piles up. Depends on how bad electoral fraud really is in our country.

It’s really tangential to my main point, that being if the IRS stuff was purposely released now by Bubba, that was poor timing. Compounding it all into one big mess prevents the vapid low-infos who make Hillary the most popular politician in the country from separating the Obama problems from the Hillary problems. They just see a staggering administration, and eventually, even with MSM filtering it all becomes Democrat problems. In that case, any popularity advantage she has is out the window… Whether she could still find any way to pull it off with an administration that has fallen is questionable. Could Reagan have won in ’76 in the shadow of Watergate? By how much? Because as popular as she is, she still doesn’t have half of the political instinct he did.

I’ll also add that I say the same exact thing about 2016 that I was saying about 2008 back in ’05. Hillary won’t get past the primary; watch out for Biden.

Okay, so I was only half-right back then.

Gingotts on May 13, 2013 at 10:55 AM

A fish rots from the head down.

Cicero43 on May 13, 2013 at 10:55 AM

bayam on May 13, 2013 at 10:54 AM

So Ms. Lerner, like Susan Rice, drew the short straw? Is this going to be like the guy in the bathtub in Vegas who got fired and then rehired? No downside to being the fall guy.

Cindy Munford on May 13, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Once again, he acts like he has no role in this. He should be firing people and not expect someone else to take ‘swift and appropriate steps to address misconduct.’ That’s what an executive does…especially one that is offended by unconstitutional, illegal, unethical, immoral, and UN-AMERICAN behaviour.

Resist We Much on May 13, 2013 at 9:33 AM

But that would be leadership, and we can’t have that now, can we?

bigmacdaddy on May 13, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Yeppers.

Resist We Much on May 13, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Update: The New York Times’ headline focuses on the real scandal — “I.R.S. Focus on Conservatives Gives G.O.P. an Issue to Seize On”. If you pay for the subscription, presumably you get the audio of the Gray Lady weeping over this blow.

Isn’t that always the real story for the New York Times? Every time the administration makes some exceedingly minor faux pas like, you know, using the IRS as a bludgeon against their political enemies, it gives the GOP something to complain about, and causes a distraction for the Obama administration as they are engaged in their holy work of making the world safe for progressivism.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 13, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Ypu don’t understand: it’s not you, it’s not patients, who are or are not giving their information to the IRS, it’s physicians who are, it’s now their method of recording medical records, they’re all going “online” such that medical records are, can be, pored over by other federal, state organizations and individuals.

Lourdes on May 13, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Sometimes I laugh at myself and question my paranoia. Then, when my concerns are confirmed, I’m even more creeped-out.

The FACT is the American people have been ‘asleep’ at the wheel’ for decades – like an ostrich with their head in the sand……

easyt65 on May 13, 2013 at 9:56 AM

Yes. I dare say that most folks on this site have probably warned friends and family for years, and have been received like the crazy uncle/aunt.

The cattle are all in the pen now. The gate will soon be latched permanently.

chigger76 on May 13, 2013 at 10:58 AM

IRS targeted conservatives as early as 2010: WSJ; Update: ABC corroborates

You mean when the Democrats took a “shellacking”? Hmmm yep its going to get real ugly real fast. There is more here than we have been told. think we will soon start seeing more underlings with bus tracks on their butts. I think this begins and ends at the top.

canditaylor68 on May 13, 2013 at 11:01 AM

From the low information voter to your average soccer mom, nothing sends chills down the back like the word “IRS audit”. So, when it gets out that the IRS had specifically targeted people and possibly those of a specific political persuasion, this is going to have some legs.

But this policy was related solely to nonprofit applications, not tax enforcement or audits. There’s a long back-log of 301(c) applications, typically about 12 months at a time (I’ve seen groups wait even longer). One reason for the long wait is widespread misunderstanding of the qualifications required to attain nonprofit status. But obviously the type of form letter is started sending out to politically-oriented groups is unacceptable.

bayam on May 13, 2013 at 11:03 AM

RE: IRS Scandal. You’ll notice that when Kuchinich was interviewed, both things came up. This is because they are both associated with the electioneering tactics of the Obama admin. Benghazi only became an issue because Hillary and the Admin wanted to downplay their failure for their future election prospects. IRS scandal is connected to the election, in that those carrying water for the Admin were selecting and attacking its opponents. They both go up to the head. It’s like having liver cancer and emphysema – one does not cancel out the other, they just amplify one another.

For this, we borrow a pair of words:

Chain Lightning.

RiverCocytus on May 13, 2013 at 11:04 AM

It is interesting how much the tea party scared the Obama administration. They aren’t scared of Islamic terrorists killing ambassadors, but they are afraid of mom and pop waving American flags.

I say people need to get out in front of IRS offices with American flags and protest this nonsense. That is, apparently, what the Obama administration is truely afraid of.

bitsy on May 13, 2013 at 11:06 AM

The New York Times’ headline focuses on the real scandal — “I.R.S. Focus on Conservatives Gives G.O.P. an Issue to Seize On”.

That is the NYT in a nutshell. Don’t they see that IRS overreach could just as easily apply to both conservative and liberal groups, depending on the circumstances? Apparently they are so myopic, they only care whether their Dear Leader might get embarrassed, not whether fundamental protections are violated. Talk about bald-faced bias.

KS Rex on May 13, 2013 at 11:07 AM

Before you can make that claim, you need to determine whether, at the very least, political appointees were involved. Ms. Lerner joined the IRS in 2001, so by your logic George Bush might be partly to blame for her behavior.

bayam on May 13, 2013 at 10:54 AM

The “blame Bush” meme died a very long time ago. Try to keep up. This was said to happen starting in 2010. You do realize that Bush was already out of office, right?

Or are you suggesting that Bush installed her in 2001 with the intention of her doing this in 2010, against his own party?

Moron.

runawayyyy on May 13, 2013 at 11:08 AM

This IRS thing is, imo, leaked *by* the WH, because they think it will distract from Benghazi, and it won’t reach to the upper levels of the WH.

It’s really that simple, imo.

Midas on May 13, 2013 at 11:09 AM

But this policy was related solely to nonprofit applications, not tax enforcement or audits.

One reason for the long wait is widespread misunderstanding of the qualifications required to attain nonprofit status. But obviously the type of form letter is started sending out to politically-oriented groups is unacceptable.

bayam on May 13, 2013 at 11:03 AM

So far. I think the possibility of an IRS run-amok is very high.

BobMbx on May 13, 2013 at 11:10 AM

But this effectively takes Hillary and Benghazi off page 1, something the MSM and the Clintons desperately need done soon.

dirtseller on May 13, 2013 at 9:25 AM

I don’t buy that. This is not the kind of “distraction” the Obama Administration wants right now. This frankly is a worse scandal politically than Benghazi. The Democrat/media complex can at least attempt to spin or downplay what happened in Libya and the aftermath. There is no spin for this. And even if this never gets linked to Obama, nobody with half a brain will for one second believe this wasn’t a politically-motivated campaign designed to benefit Obama and the Democrats in election years.

Doughboy on May 13, 2013 at 9:33 AM

If anything, I think the IRS scandal will puncture the public image of the Obama administration as somehow pure of scandal, and make people less inclined to dismiss Benghazi as just Republican obstructionism.

Yes, I know it was ludicrous to consider the Obama administration to be pure of scandal, or Benghazi to be just a Republican witch hunt, but I’m referring here to the perception among people who up until now haven’t really been paying attention.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 13, 2013 at 11:10 AM

This could be like Capone, Obama submarined by the IRS!

Not Benghazi, Fast & Furious or the phone book of other crimes he has knowingly put in motion through his office…

Who is in charge of the cocktails around here, I need something to go with my canapes… :)

Tilly on May 13, 2013 at 10:49 AM

True enough. One of Rush’s current statements is that it may be some small thing that will bring Obama down. Not that this IRS scandal is small by any means, but it may be what eventually turns the tide of public opinion against him. Not including the MSM — they will have to be dragged kicking and screaming as they always do to acknowledge it, but then they will look like they are latecomers to the party and who are wearing last decade’s clothing.

PatriotGal2257 on May 13, 2013 at 11:11 AM

The “blame Bush” meme died a very long time ago. Try to keep up. This was said to happen starting in 2010. You do realize that Bush was already out of office, right?

Or are you suggesting that Bush installed her in 2001 with the intention of her doing this in 2010, against his own party?

Why don’t your read the entire thread before wetting your pants. Ms. Lerner joined the IRS in 2001, and as a career government employee matriculated under Bush, I said that she didn’t represent the type of Obama political appointee that some are suggesting was responsible for this policy.

bayam on May 13, 2013 at 11:12 AM

It is interesting how much the tea party scared the Obama administration. They aren’t scared of Islamic terrorists killing ambassadors, but they are afraid of mom and pop waving American flags.

No, they aren’t afraid of it, just irked that the muslim terrorists, uh, demostrators, just got wildly out of hand and death and destruction followed. After all, thus admin and the muslim terrorists demonstrators were supposed to be on the same side.

Not so much flag waving moms and pops supporting conservative ideology and organizations.

Right there is Barry’s real enemies of his state.

hawkeye54 on May 13, 2013 at 11:12 AM

But this policy was related solely to nonprofit applications, not tax enforcement or audits. There’s a long back-log of 301(c) applications, typically about 12 months at a time (I’ve seen groups wait even longer). One reason for the long wait is widespread misunderstanding of the qualifications required to attain nonprofit status. But obviously the type of form letter is started sending out to politically-oriented groups is unacceptable.

bayam on May 13, 2013 at 11:03 AM

If you’re saying the IRS should be allowed to give scrutiny to not-for-profit applications, then you are certainly right. I’m sure they do have a huge backlog and have to be picky to prevent fraud. But I hope you’re not minimizing the over-the-top questions in the information requests, nor the fact that they targeted groups based on their political persuasion?

KS Rex on May 13, 2013 at 11:12 AM

This, by the way – signs of a democracy truly on its way out. The worst possibilities of democratic politics are all beginning to blossom.

This has nothing at all to do with Americans ‘being asleep at the wheel’ – the degree to which the average citizen can be aware of all that is going on and make some move about it in a mass democracy is very minimal. That the governments have lacked transparency and sought only their own power via democratic means – that the ideological elite – which is what they are – have fulfilled Tocqueville’s prediction in using voting and popularity and poll as a justification for giving themselves what they already want is merely a sign of the level of decay and nothing else.

In the best representative democracies, the people need know or do little because those who represent them actually.. represent them. They have their own jobs and politics 24/7 isn’t even close to one of them. A society where everyone has to be constantly politically alert is not a healthy society; if you need to vote to prevent the loss of your rights, it may or may not be good that there’s a democracy present, but what is certain is that the society you are in is sick.

This sickness is from the head down, but the structure itself makes such sickness possible.

RiverCocytus on May 13, 2013 at 11:13 AM

I think this sticks – too many mistakes. He lost on guns and the sequester. Now these two things.

Whether it is enough to let the GOP win the Senate in 2014 is beyond me. The SC1 result should pretty much end all talk of Pelosi returning to the speakership in the House.

And this will leave a mark on Hilary – and she already looks terrible in what is increasingly a beauty contest (presidential elections) so I was never all that worried about her anyway. The “bluedog democrat” type of voter sends lots of their sons and daughters into the military. They will hold Hilary accountable for this and will probably stop her ability to even win the nomination.

Zomcon JEM on May 13, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Obama Goes Full Nixon

http://www.thecrimson.com/column/jfmk-school-of-government/article/2013/5/13/kocsis-obama/

The tale of the attack dog IRS begins with the days of Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose IRS chief, Elmer Lincoln Irey, not only used the agency to prosecute Al Capone, but also engaged in investigative activities against former Republican Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon and FDR’s chief Democratic rival, Louisiana Governor Huey Long. Of course, the most renowned and nefarious chapter in the IRS history book dates to Richard M. Nixon, who ordered the institution at his disposal to probe his 1972 electoral opponent, George McGovern. It should not be forgotten that Nixon’s abuse of this executive power became, famously, an impeachable offense.

redguy on May 13, 2013 at 11:15 AM

But this policy was related solely to nonprofit applications, not tax enforcement or audits. There’s a long back-log of 301(c) applications, typically about 12 months at a time (I’ve seen groups wait even longer). One reason for the long wait is widespread misunderstanding of the qualifications required to attain nonprofit status. But obviously the type of form letter is started sending out to politically-oriented groups is unacceptable.

bayam on May 13, 2013 at 11:03 AM

But what you’ve quoted begins with “low information voter” and “soccer mom,” not “tax attorney” and “H&R block employee.” Look at the audience there. They don’t know about difference with nonprofit applications. They aren’t even sure what 301(c) is (some sort of car? a thing in the computer?).

What low info voters and soccer moms see is a corrupt bureaucracy abusing their power in a way that could conceivably happen to them or someone in their family. It’s the same argument that the left has used in pushing gay marriage even: everybody knows someone to whom it hits home. Yet it’s not suppose to apply when it’s active government corruption that is threatening the wallet in the home?

People see government pushing people by taking their money. Conservatives see themselves on the bad end of it. Libertarian leaning liberals understand that any government abuse that is made precedent is taken up by both sides, and know the shoe could be on the other foot if it’s ignored now.

This matters, however much lefties wish it doesn’t.

Gingotts on May 13, 2013 at 11:15 AM

No, you don’t have to determine whether political appointees are involved.

For example, the State Department has career employees that are hardcore leftists, believers in realpolitik Wilsonian foreign policy (spreading democracy to the four corners of the earth and R2P) and Muslim Brotherhood sympathisers.

This was true during the Bush administration and it is true now. (Hell, it has been true since the Wilson Administration.) In his speech nine days after 09.11.01, Bush asked rhetorically, ‘Why do they hate us?’ Not very long after that, the State Department held a symposium entitled ‘Why Do They Hate Us?’ where the US blamed itself. Anwar al-Awlaki was invited to The Pentagon by ‘The Brass’ months later and the FBI has since admitted that he worked for them. The Egyptian press publicly touted several months ago that the ‘Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated Washington and the Obama Administration.’

We know from numerous FOIA requests and judicial proceedings that the DOJ has been politicised to the point that the Civil Rights Division doesn’t believe that disenfranchisement of white voters deserves investigation or is even a crime (For two examples, see the Obama administration’s position on Ike Brown and the fact that an admitted three-time perjurer, Stephanie Celandine Gyamfi, who it has been determined, leaked numerous attorney-client privileged documents, confidential personnel information, and other sensitive legal materials to the Washington Post and various left-wing blogs throughout 2005-2007 and then lied about it under oath, is still a staff attorney).

And, as for political appointees, we have some examples…

We KNOW that Kathleen Sebelius violated the Hatch Act, according to the US Office of Special Counsel.

We KNOW that Thomas Perez, head of the DOJ Civil Rights Division and Obama’s nominee to become Secretary of Labour, violated federal records laws in excess of 1,200 times by using his home email to conduct DOJ work and has refused to comply with Congressional subpoenas and FOIA requests.

Resist We Much on May 13, 2013 at 11:17 AM

bayam on May 13, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Yeah, he is as pure as the driven snow. And let’s not forget his 2004 Senate campaign where he and his media minions sued to have sealed divorce/custody records of Jack Ryan published. No, he wouldn’t used his power to do anything like that.

Cindy Munford on May 13, 2013 at 11:18 AM

It’s amazing what the trolls are willing to defend in order to give their boy king a pass.

Well, not really amazing.

CurtZHP on May 13, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Isn’t it interesting that Republicans didn’t back Nixon shenanigans but liberals will rationalize the same crap in one of their own? Wrong is wrong until a Lib does it.

Cindy Munford on May 13, 2013 at 11:20 AM

Imagine all the things the media would have found out (and been forced to cover up)had it investigated Obama like it investigated Sarah Palin. Drug use, radical ties while attending Columbia, etc., etc., etc.

bw222 on May 13, 2013 at 11:21 AM

But this policy was related solely to nonprofit applications, not tax enforcement or audits. There’s a long back-log of 301(c) applications, typically about 12 months at a time (I’ve seen groups wait even longer). One reason for the long wait is widespread misunderstanding of the qualifications required to attain nonprofit status. But obviously the type of form letter is started sending out to politically-oriented groups is unacceptable.

bayam on May 13, 2013 at 11:03 AM

If you’re saying the IRS should be allowed to give scrutiny to not-for-profit applications, then you are certainly right. I’m sure they do have a huge backlog and have to be picky to prevent fraud. But I hope you’re not minimizing the over-the-top questions in the information requests, nor the fact that they targeted groups based on their political persuasion?

KS Rex on May 13, 2013 at 11:12 AM

Yes, obviously it was a stupid, ham-fisted, and completely wrong way to try and reduce disqualified applicants. By the way, obtaining nonprofit status, as a non-qualified organization, won’t get in you legal trouble. But you know what will? Obtaining that status, not paying taxes, and then engaging in political activity that disqualifies you from being a nonprofit. When you’ve reached that point, you’re in violation of the law and subject to huge problems with the IRS. So the IRS should try and protect people from ending up in that situation. But obviously this policy was completely unacceptable and a stupid way of doing it.

bayam on May 13, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Isn’t it interesting that Republicans didn’t back Nixon shenanigans but liberals will rationalize the same crap in one of their own? Wrong is wrong until a Lib does it.

Cindy Munford on May 13, 2013 at 11:20 AM

No one dies because of Watergate. People died because of Benghazi and Fast and Furious.

bw222 on May 13, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Before you can make that claim, you need to determine whether, at the very least, political appointees were involved. Ms. Lerner joined the IRS in 2001, so by your logic George Bush might be partly to blame for her behavior.
The federal government is filled with career employees with no allegiance to any political party or single administration. To correlate a cultural change in the IRS with a misguided policy instigated by some career employees is a very far stretch.

bayam on May 13, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Along comes a liberal to defend the indefensible. IRS abuses were impeachable/Fascist when the Nixon administration did them, but they are now hunky dory when they occur under the Obama administration. This tells you a lot about latent authoritarian tendencies in certain liberals such as yourself.

Either the “career employees” were told to harass conservative groupsby their superiors, OR an entire department worth of them were allowed to go rogue on their own (for several years, without any attempt to control them). I am not really sure which possibility is more terrifying – an agency harassing political opponents at the direction of the politician controlling them, or an agency completely out of control. In either event, the BHO administration is responsible for this – whether it is through intent or neglegence of the administration.

SubmarineDoc on May 13, 2013 at 11:23 AM

But this policy was related solely to nonprofit applications, not tax enforcement or audits. There’s a long back-log of 301(c) applications, typically about 12 months at a time (I’ve seen groups wait even longer). One reason for the long wait is widespread misunderstanding of the qualifications required to attain nonprofit status. But obviously the type of form letter is started sending out to politically-oriented groups is unacceptable.

bayam on May 13, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Oh, you’ve seen long backlogs on ’301(c) applications’ have you?

26 USC § 301 doesn’t involve an application or non-profit status. It involves the corporate distribution of property to shareholders.

If you have really seen groups wait 12 months or longer for non-profit status, you’d know that the statute that you are grasping for is 26 USC § 501.

Furthermore, as someone who is has actually prepared the legal work and secured non-profit status for charitable, educational, and other tax exempt organisations, I can say, UNEQUIVOCALLY, that 12 months or longer is the EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE. I have obtained such for clients in days…at least, I did before Obama became president and I went Galt. Perhaps, 12 months or more is now the rule. I wouldn’t be surprised considering his former positions on charities and taxation.

Resist We Much on May 13, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Wrong is wrong until a Lib does it.

Because noting done for the benefit of the poor struggling masses out of the goodness of one’s heart can ever be wrong.

What a conservative does is simply out of greed and personal ambition for power.

hawkeye54 on May 13, 2013 at 11:29 AM

Isn’t it interesting that Republicans didn’t back Nixon shenanigans but liberals will rationalize the same crap in one of their own? Wrong is wrong until a Lib does it.

Cindy Munford on May 13, 2013 at 11:20 AM

Hold the phone there Cindy.

Lots of republicans backed Nixon for quite a while. It took a while for the dam to burst.

Other than deaths being involved, the major difference here is that the Press hated Nixon. Now, they felate 0bama.

cozmo on May 13, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Private citizens who use their real name around the Internet just seem crazy to me. I don’t get it. Maybe it’s because I first got online in the ’90s when such things were strongly advised against by AOL help or whatever. Don’t know what makes people think that they should value their own privacy less than they did 15 years ago.

I had my Facebook settings locked tight, and limited only to actual friends (a couple dozen, not the hundreds most people have.) when I first went on. It didn’t take me long to get queasy even with that and give it up completely. Won’t touch the place now.

Gingotts on May 13, 2013 at 10:20 AM

They know who you are regardless of the moniker under which you post…and they know where you are when you are posting.

Resist We Much on May 13, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3